-
Journal of Dairy Science Jun 2018Clinical mastitis (CM) is one of the most frequent and costly diseases in dairy cows. A frustrating aspect of CM is its recurrent nature. This review was conducted to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical mastitis (CM) is one of the most frequent and costly diseases in dairy cows. A frustrating aspect of CM is its recurrent nature. This review was conducted to synthesize knowledge on risk of repeated cases of CM, effects of recurrent CM cases, and risk factors for CM recurrence. A systematic review methodology was used to identify articles for this narrative review. Searches were performed to identify relevant scientific literature published after 1989 in English or French from 2 databases (PubMed and CAB Abstracts) and 1 search platform (Web of Science). Fifty-seven manuscripts were selected for qualitative synthesis according to the inclusion criteria. Among the 57 manuscripts selected in this review, a description of CM recurrence, its risk factors, and effects were investigated and reported in 33, 37, and 19 selected manuscripts, respectively. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were used to compute risk ratio comparing risk of CM in cows that already had 1 CM event in the current lactation with risk of CM in healthy cows. For these analyses, 9 manuscripts that reported the total number of lactations followed and the number of lactations with ≤1 and ≤2 CM cases were used. When summarizing results from studies requiring ≥5 d between CM events to consider a CM event as a new case, we observed no significant change in CM susceptibility following a first CM case (risk ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.14). However, for studies using a more liberal CM recurrence definition (i.e., only 24 h between CM events to consider new CM cases), we observed a 1.54 times greater CM risk (95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.97) for cows that already had 1 CM event in the current lactation compared with healthy cows. The most important risk factors for CM recurrence were parity (i.e., higher risk in older cows), a higher milk production, pathogen species involved in the preceding case, and whether a bacteriological cure was observed following the preceding case. The most important effects of recurrent CM were the milk yield reduction following a recurrent CM case, which was reported to be similar to that of the first CM case, and the increased risk of culling and mortality, which were reported to surpass those of first CM cases.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Female; Incidence; Lactation; Mastitis, Bovine; Milk; Parity; Pregnancy
PubMed: 29525302
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-13730 -
Journal of Dairy Science Jun 2018Clinical mastitis affects 3% of primiparous dairy cattle (heifers) in the first month after calving. Additionally, the prevalence of intramammary infection (IMI) in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical mastitis affects 3% of primiparous dairy cattle (heifers) in the first month after calving. Additionally, the prevalence of intramammary infection (IMI) in the months before first calving is high, resulting in a high prevalence of heifers calving with IMI. Precalving therapy is an accepted recommendation for reducing mastitis in multiparous cows, but prophylactic treatment for heifers is uncommon in North America. Objectives of this study were to (1) quantify changes in postcalving udder health in heifers following application of a precalving treatment; (2) compare effectiveness among various types of treatments; and (3) compare effectiveness of various types of treatments against specific pathogens. A systematic review was conducted comparing interventions aimed at improving udder health in heifers. Of 62 included studies, 48 clinical trials were used in a meta-analysis. Data were synthesized using a random effects model for meta-analysis, followed by sub-group analyses comparing treatment types, and specific pathogens with statistical testing using meta-regression. Occurrence of mastitis (defined as elevated somatic cell count, clinical mastitis, and IMI) was reduced in treated heifers compared with untreated controls with a pooled risk ratio of treated to untreated heifers of 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 0.67). Upon stratification by treatment types, teat sealants and combination therapies (vaccines and antimicrobials; antimicrobials and teat sealants; and all 3) were most effective at improving udder health with pooled risk ratios of 0.40 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.52) and 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.45), respectively. Antimicrobials and vaccines also reduced occurrence of IMI and subclinical and clinical mastitis when compared with untreated heifers. Although variation was observed in the pathogen-specific effectiveness of treatments at reducing rates of disease, antimicrobials, teat sealants, and combinations of vaccines or teat sealants with antimicrobials were consistently effective, whereas vaccines were only effective for contagious pathogens. Recommendations for use of antibiotics should consider their relative benefit while also considering potential for increasing antimicrobial resistance.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cattle; Female; Mammary Glands, Animal; Mastitis, Bovine; Pregnancy
PubMed: 29525300
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-14301 -
Journal of Dairy Science Oct 2017The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have investigated the relationship between mastitis and pregnancy loss (PL) in dairy cows. PubMed and ScienceDirect were used to search pertinent peer-reviewed research reports of interest. Screening of research reports was conducted at 3 levels: titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The search identified 651 records for initial screening. The final screening process identified 8 qualified articles for review after removing 10 duplicate records, 582 titles, 31 abstracts, and 20 full-text articles. Two studies produced strong epidemiologic evidence indicating that (1) exposure to clinical mastitis during early gestation (first 45 d of gestation) is associated with subsequent PL during the following 90 d; and (2) subclinical mastitis 1 to 30 d before artificial insemination (AI) is associated with subsequent PL at 35 to 41 d of gestation. An additional study showed that exposure to clinical mastitis during early lactation in combination with low body condition can increase the risk of PL in dairy cows; however, the interaction effect between clinical mastitis and low body condition on PL was considered weak. Four other studies produced inconclusive evidence indicating that mastitis is a predisposing factor for PL in dairy cows, as the exposure risk period for mastitis overlapped with the follow-up period for diagnosis of PL in dairy cows. Finally, one study failed to identify a relationship between mastitis and PL in dairy cows. Further research is needed to (1) support the hypothesis that mastitis in combination with low body condition score (or other exposure factors) can increase the risk of PL, (2) compare the effect of clinical versus subclinical mastitis on PL, (3) compare the effect of mastitis before breeding and during gestation on PL, and (4) compare the effect of mastitis on PL in dairy cows during different lactations.
Topics: Abortion, Veterinary; Animals; Cattle; Female; Insemination, Artificial; Lactation; Mastitis, Bovine; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 28780088
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-12711 -
Journal of Dairy Science Oct 2017Clinical mastitis is an important disease in dairies. Its treatment is mainly based on the use of antimicrobial drugs. Numerous non-antimicrobial drugs and treatment... (Review)
Review
Clinical mastitis is an important disease in dairies. Its treatment is mainly based on the use of antimicrobial drugs. Numerous non-antimicrobial drugs and treatment strategies have already been reported for clinical mastitis treatment, but data on their efficacy have never been collated in a systematic way. The objective of this systematic review was to identify treatments other than conventional antimicrobials for the treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cows. A systematic review was performed with studies written in English or French selected from CAB Abstracts, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1970 to June 2014. Controlled clinical trials, observational studies, and experimental challenges were retained. Lactating dairy cows with clinical mastitis were the participant of interest. All treatments other than conventional antimicrobials for clinical mastitis during lactation were retained. Only studies comparing the treatment under investigation to a negative or positive control, or both, were included. Outcomes evaluated were clinical and bacteriological cure rates and milk production. Selection of the study, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias was performed by 3 reviewers. Assessment of risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for systematic review of interventions. A total of 2,451 manuscripts were first identified and 39 manuscripts corresponding to 41 studies were included. Among these, 22 were clinical trials, 18 were experimental studies, and 1 was an observational study. The treatments evaluated were conventional anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 14), oxytocin with or without frequent milk out (n = 5), biologics (n = 9), homeopathy (n = 5), botanicals (n = 4), probiotics (n = 2), and other alternative products (n = 2). All trials had at least one unclear or high risk of bias. Most trials (n = 13) did not observe significant differences in clinical or bacteriological cure rates in comparison with negative or positive controls. Few studies evaluated the effect of treatment on milk yield. In general, the power of the different studies was very low, thus precluding conclusions on noninferiority or nonsuperiority of the treatments investigated. No evidence-based recommendations could be given for the use of an alternative or non-antimicrobial conventional treatment for clinical mastitis. However, probiotics and oxytocin with or without frequent milk out should not be recommended. We concluded that homeopathic treatments are not efficient for management of clinical mastitis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biological Products; Cattle; Female; Homeopathy; Lactation; Mastitis, Bovine; Milk; Oxytocin; Phytotherapy; Probiotics
PubMed: 28755947
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12512 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect.Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) careThere were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard careFor all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF)This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both.There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no conclusive evidence supporting any antenatal BF education for improving initiation of BF, proportion of women giving any BF or exclusively BF at three or six months or the duration of BF. There is an urgent need to conduct a high-quality, randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of antenatal BF education, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence in this review is primarily relevant to high-income settings.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Counseling; Female; Humans; Mothers; Peer Group; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27922724
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006425.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Motivation; Pacifiers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27572944
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007202.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Breast engorgement is a painful condition affecting large numbers of women in the early postpartum period. It may lead to premature weaning, cracked nipples, mastitis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast engorgement is a painful condition affecting large numbers of women in the early postpartum period. It may lead to premature weaning, cracked nipples, mastitis and breast abscess. Various forms of treatment for engorgement have been studied but so far little evidence has been found on an effective intervention.
OBJECTIVES
This is an update of a systematic review first published by Snowden et al. in 2001 and subsequently published in 2010. The objective of this update is to seek new information on the best forms of treatment for breast engorgement in lactating women.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies for inclusion through the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2015) and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data and conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments. Where insufficient data were presented in trial reports, we attempted to contact study authors and obtain necessary information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 13 studies with 919 women. In 10 studies individual women were the unit of analysis and in three studies, individual breasts were the unit of analysis. Four out of 13 studies were funded by an agency with a commercial interest, two received charitable funding, and two were funded by government agencies.Trials examined interventions including non-medical treatments: cabbage leaves (three studies), acupuncture (two studies), ultrasound (one study), acupressure (one study), scraping therapy (Gua Sha) (one study), cold breast-packs and electromechanical massage (one study), and medical treatments: serrapeptase (one study), protease (one study) and subcutaneous oxytocin (one study). The studies were small and used different comparisons with only single studies contributing data to outcomes of this review. We were unable to pool results in meta-analysis and only seven studies provided outcome data that could be included in data and analysis. Non-medical No differences were observed in the one study comparing acupuncture with usual care (advice and oxytocin spray) (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.92; one study; 140 women) in terms of cessation of breastfeeding. However, women in the acupuncture group were less likely to develop an abscess (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.01; one study; 210 women), had less severe symptoms on day five (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99), and had a lower rate of pyrexia (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94) than women in the usual care group.In another study with 39 women comparing cabbage leaf extract with placebo, no differences were observed in breast pain (mean difference (MD) 0.40, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.47; low-quality evidence) or breast engorgement (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.58; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between ultrasound and sham treatment in analgesic requirement (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.51; one study; 45 women; low-quality evidence). A study comparing Gua-Sha therapy with hot packs and massage found a marked difference in breast engorgement (MD -2.42, 95% CI -2.98 to -1.86; one study; 54 women), breast pain (MD -2.01, 95% CI -2.60 to -1.42; one study; 54 women) and breast discomfort (MD -2.33, 95% CI -2.81 to -1.85; one study; 54 women) in favour of Gua-Sha therapy five minutes post-intervention, though both interventions significantly decreased breast temperature, engorgement, pain and discomfort at five and 30 minutes post-treatment.Results from individual trials that could not be included in data analysis suggested that there were no differences between room temperature and chilled cabbage leaves and between chilled cabbage leaves and gel packs, with all interventions producing some relief. Intermittent hot/cold packs applied for 20 minutes twice a day were found to be more effective than acupressure (P < 0.001). Acupuncture did not improve maternal satisfaction with breastfeeding. In another study, women who received breast-shaped cold packs were more likely to experience a reduction in pain intensity than women who received usual care; however, the differences between groups at baseline, and the failure to observe randomisation, make this study at high risk of bias. One study found a decrease in breast temperature (P = 0.03) following electromechanical massage and pumping in comparison to manual methods; however, the high level of attrition and alternating method of sequence generation place this study at high risk of bias. MedicalWomen treated with protease complex were less likely to have no improvement in pain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; one study; 59 women) and swelling (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79; one study; 59 women) on the fourth day of treatment and less likely to experience no overall change in their symptoms or worsening of symptoms (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.56). It should be noted that it is more than 40 years since the study was carried out, and we are not aware that this preparation is used in current practice. Subcutaneous oxytocin provided no relief at all in symptoms at three days (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 14.44; one study; 45 women).Serrapeptase was found to produce some relief in breast pain, induration and swelling, when compared to placebo, with a fewer number of women experiencing slight to no improvement in overallbreast engorgement, swelling and breast pain.Overall, the risk of bias of studies in the review is high. The overall quality as assessed using the GRADE approach was found to be low due to limitations in study design and the small number of women in the included studies, with only single studies providing data for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although some interventions such as hot/cold packs, Gua-Sha (scraping therapy), acupuncture, cabbage leaves and proteolytic enzymes may be promising for the treatment of breast engorgement during lactation, there is insufficient evidence from published trials on any intervention to justify widespread implementation. More robust research is urgently needed on the treatment of breast engorgement.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Brassica; Breast Diseases; Cryotherapy; Female; Humans; Lactation Disorders; Oxytocin; Peptide Hydrolases; Phytotherapy; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 27351423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006946.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015The benefits of breastfeeding are well known, and the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continuing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits of breastfeeding are well known, and the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continuing breastfeeding to age two. However, many women stop breastfeeding due to lactational breast abscesses. A breast abscess is a localised accumulation of infected fluid in breast tissue. Abscesses are commonly treated with antibiotics, incision and drainage (I&D) or ultrasound-guided needle aspiration, but there is no consensus on the optimal treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different treatments for the management of breast abscesses in breastfeeding women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trial Register (27 February 2015). In addition we searched African Journals Online (27 February 2015), Google Scholar (27 February 2015), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Databases (27 February 2015) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (27 February 2015). We also checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted experts in the field as well as relevant pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating any intervention for treating lactational breast abscesses compared with any other intervention. Studies published in abstract form, quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies. Overall, trials had an unclear risk of bias for most domains due to poor reporting. Two studies did not stratify data for lactational and non-lactational breast abscesses, and these studies do not contribute to the results. This review is based on data from four studies involving 325 women. Needle aspiration (with and without ultrasound guidance) versus incision and drainage (I&D) Mean time (days) to complete resolution of breast abscess (three studies) - there was substantial heterogeneity among these data (Tau(2) = 47.63, I(2) = 97%) and a clear difference between subgroups (with or without ultrasound guidance; Chi(2) = 56.88, I(2) = 98.2%, P = < 0.00001). We did not pool these data in a meta-analysis. Two studies excluded women who had treatment failure when they calculated the mean time to complete resolution. One study found that the time to complete resolution of breast abscess favoured needle aspiration over I&D (mean difference (MD) -6.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.81 to -4.33; n = 36), but excluded 9/22 (41%) women in the needle aspiration group due to treatment failure. Another study reported faster resolution in the needle aspiration group (MD -17.80; 95% CI -21.27 to -14.33; n = 64) but excluded 6/35 (17%) women in the needle aspiration group due to treatment failure. A third study also reported that needle aspiration was associated with a shorter time to complete resolution of breast abscess (MD -16.00; 95%CI -18.73 to -13.27; n = 60); however, the authors did not indicate the number of women who were lost to follow-up for either group, and it is unclear how many women contributed to this result. Considering the limitations of the available data, we do not consider the results to be informative. Continuation of breastfeeding, after treatment (success): results favoured the needle aspiration group, but we did not pool data from the two studies because of substantial unexplained heterogeneity (I(2) = 97%). One study reported that women in the needle aspiration group were more likely to continue breastfeeding (risk ratio (RR) 2.89; 95% CI 1.64 to 5.08; n = 60), whereas the other study found no clear difference (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22 n = 70). Treatment failure was more common among women treated with needle aspiration compared to those who underwent I&D (RR 16.12; 95% CI 2.21 to 117.73; two studies, n = 115, low quality evidence). In one study, treatment with needle aspiration failed in 9/22 women who subsequently underwent I&D to treat their breast abscess. In another study, treatment with needle aspiration failed in 6/35 women, who subsequently underwent I&D. All abscesses in the I&D group were successfully treated.The included studies provided limited data for the review's secondary outcomes. No data were reported for adverse events. One study (60 women) reported that women in the needle aspiration group were more satisfied with their treatment than women who received I&D to treat their breast abscesses. Incision and drainage (I&D) with or without antibioticsOne study (150 women) compared the value of adding a broad-spectrum cephalosporin (single dose or a course of treatment) to women who underwent I&D for breast abscesses.The mean time to resolution of breast abscess was reported as being similar in all groups (although women with infection were excluded). Mean time to resolution for women who received a course of antibiotics was reported as 7.3 days, 6.9 days for women who received a single dose of antibiotics and 7.4 days for women who did not receive antibiotics. Standard deviations, P values and CIs were not reported and prevented further analysis. No data were reported for any continuation of breastfeeding after treatment (success). For treatment failure, there was no clear difference between the groups of women who received antibiotics (either a single dose or a course of antibiotics) and those who did not (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.76).Included studies rarely reported this review's secondary outcomes (including adverse events). For post-operative complications/morbidity, there was no difference in the risk of wound infections between the antibiotics and no antibiotics groups (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.17), irrespective of whether women received a single dose or a course of antibiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether needle aspiration is a more effective option to I&D for lactational breast abscesses, or whether an antibiotic should be routinely added to women undergoing I&D for lactational breast abscesses. We graded the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure as low quality, with downgrading based on including small studies with few events and unclear risk of bias.
Topics: Abscess; Adult; Biopsy, Fine-Needle; Breast Diseases; Breast Feeding; Cephalosporins; Drainage; Female; Humans; Mastitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 26279276
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010490.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Leading health authorities all recommend exclusive breastfeeding to six months' postpartum. While most women initiate breastfeeding, many discontinue due to difficulties... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Leading health authorities all recommend exclusive breastfeeding to six months' postpartum. While most women initiate breastfeeding, many discontinue due to difficulties encountered rather than maternal choice. One common breastfeeding difficulty is painful nipples. Research has identified poor infant positioning or latch as a common cause of painful nipples. While many different interventions designed to reduce nipple pain in breastfeeding women have been evaluated, it is unclear which intervention is the most effective treatment. An understanding of nipple pain and treatment options are needed to improve breastfeeding duration and exclusivity rates and to address systematically one of the most frequent difficulties encountered by breastfeeding women.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of all interventions in the resolution or reduction of nipple pain and the impact of the interventions on other outcomes such as nipple trauma, nipple infections, breast mastitis, breastfeeding duration, breastfeeding exclusivity, and maternal satisfaction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014) and scanned secondary references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials designed to evaluate any intervention for treating nipple pain among breastfeeding women. Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. The following interventions were eligible for inclusion compared with each other or usual care (i.e. education only): pharmacological (e.g. antifungal creams); non-pharmacological topical treatments (e.g. lanolin); dressings (e.g. hydrogel dressings); nipple protection devices (e.g. breast shells), phototherapy, and expressed breast milk. Nipple pain in women who are feeding with expressed breast milk (i.e. women of infants in neonatal units) is associated with other methods of removing milk from the mother's breast such as manual expression and various types of breast pumps. Nipple pain and subsequent treatment is different in this unique maternal population and thus we excluded women solely feeding with expressed breast milk from this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated methodological quality, and checked data for accuracy. We sought additional information from several trial researchers.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials of good methodological quality involving 656 women in the review. The four included trials evaluated five different interventions including glycerine pads, lanolin with breast shells, lanolin alone, expressed breast milk, and an all-purpose nipple ointment. All studies included education to position the infant at the breast correctly as part of routine postpartum care to both treatment and control groups.Pooled data existed only for the comparison of lanolin versus usual care. We did not pool data for other outcomes due to either heterogeneity in outcome measures or differing interventions.There was no evidence that glycerine gel dressings or breast shells with lanolin significantly improved nipple pain. One trial found no clear differences in nipple pain (at one to three days, four to five days, or six to seven days' post-treatment) between women who applied lanolin or nothing to their nipples. In contrast, the same trial found that women who applied expressed breast milk had significantly lower perceptions of nipple pain following four to five days of treatment than women who applied lanolin. However, this beneficial effect was not maintained after six to seven days of treatment. There were no group differences in nipple pain perceptions at any assessment between women who applied expressed breast milk and women who applied nothing. Women who applied an "all-purpose nipple ointment", in comparison to women who applied lanolin, had no improvement in nipple pain after seven days of treatment. There was insufficient evidence that glycerine gel dressings, lanolin with breast shells, lanolin alone, expressed breast milk, or all-purpose nipple ointment improved maternal perceptions of nipple pain.Overall, there was insufficient evidence to recommend any intervention for the treatment of nipple pain. However, one important finding was that regardless of the treatment used, for most women nipple pain reduced to mild levels after approximately seven to 10 days' postpartum. The provision of anticipatory guidance regarding usual time to pain reduction may be a useful strategy in assisting women to continue to breastfeed and to do so exclusively. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of nipple pain as assessed using GRADE was of low quality, mainly because single studies with few participants contributed data for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence that glycerine gel dressings, breast shells with lanolin, lanolin alone, or the all-purpose nipple ointment significantly improved maternal perceptions of nipple pain. The results from these four trials of good methodological quality suggested that applying nothing or just expressed breast milk may be equally or more beneficial in the short-term experience of nipple pain than the application of an ointment such as lanolin.The quality of the evidence for this review did not lead to robust conclusions regarding the objectives assessed. We included only four trials, incorporating 656 women, in the review and all four trials compared varying interventions, participants, study outcome measures, and standards of usual care. The methodological quality of the included studies was good but the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of nipple pain was of low quality, mainly because single studies with few participants contributed data for analysis.
Topics: Bandages; Breast Diseases; Breast Feeding; Female; Gels; Glycerol; Humans; Lanolin; Milk, Human; Nipples; Ointments; Pain Management; Protective Devices; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25506813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007366.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Mastitis can be caused by ineffective positioning of the baby at the breast or restricted feeding. Infective mastitis is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mastitis can be caused by ineffective positioning of the baby at the breast or restricted feeding. Infective mastitis is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The prevalence of mastitis in breastfeeding women may reach 33%. Effective milk removal, pain medication and antibiotic therapy have been the mainstays of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to examine the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies in relieving symptoms for breastfeeding women with mastitis with or without laboratory investigation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2012), contacted investigators and other content experts known to us for unpublished trials and scanned the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of various types of antibiotic therapies or antibiotic therapy versus alternative therapies for the treatment of mastitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When in dispute, we consulted a third author.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One small trial (n = 25) compared amoxicillin with cephradine and found no significant difference between the two antibiotics in terms of symptom relief and abscess formation. Another, older study compared breast emptying alone as 'supportive therapy' versus antibiotic therapy plus supportive therapy, and no therapy. The findings of the latter study suggested faster clearance of symptoms for women using antibiotics, although the study design was problematic.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of lactational mastitis. There is an urgent need to conduct high-quality, double-blinded RCTs to determine whether antibiotics should be used in this common postpartum condition.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Breast Feeding; Breast Milk Expression; Cephradine; Female; Humans; Mastitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450563
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005458.pub3