Reproductive health for refugees by refugees in Guinea III: maternal health

BACKGROUND: Maternal mortality can be particularly high in conflict and chronic emergency settings, partly due to inaccessible maternal care. This paper examines associations of refugee-led health education, formal education, age, and parity on maternal knowledge, attitudes, and practices among reproductive-age women in refugee camps in Guinea. METHODS: Data comes from a 1999 cross-sectional survey of 444 female refugees in 23 camps. Associations of reported maternal health outcomes with exposure to health education (exposed versus unexposed), formal education (none versus some), age (adolescent versus adult), or parity (nulliparous, parous, grand multiparous), were analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in maternal knowledge or attitudes. Virtually all respondents said pregnant women should attend antenatal care and knew the importance of tetanus vaccination. Most recognised abdominal pain (75%) and headaches (24%) as maternal danger signs and recommended facility attendance for danger signs. Most had last delivered at a facility (67%), mainly for safety reasons (99%). Higher odds of facility delivery were found for those exposed to RHG health education (adjusted odds ratio 2.03, 95%CI 1.23-3.01), formally educated (adjusted OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.05-3.92), or grand multipara (adjusted OR 2.13, 95%CI 1.21-3.75). Main reasons for delivering at home were distance to a facility (94%) and privacy (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Refugee-led maternal health education appeared to increase facility delivery for these refugee women. Improved knowledge of danger signs and the importance of skilled birth attendance, while vital, may be less important in chronic emergency settings than improving facility access where quality of care is acceptable

Azithromycin-chloroquine and the intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy

In the high malaria-transmission settings of sub-Saharan Africa, malaria in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal, perinatal and neonatal morbidity. Intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) reduces the incidence of low birth-weight, pre-term delivery, intrauterine growth-retardation and maternal anaemia. However, the public health benefits of IPTp are declining due to SP resistance. The combination of azithromycin and chloroquine is a potential alternative to SP for IPTp. This review summarizes key in vitro and in vivo evidence of azithromycin and chloroquine activity against Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, as well as the anticipated secondary benefits that may result from their combined use in IPTp, including the cure and prevention of many sexually transmitted diseases. Drug costs and the necessity for external financing are discussed along with a range of issues related to drug resistance and surveillance. Several scientific and programmatic questions of interest to policymakers and programme managers are also presented that would need to be addressed before azithromycin-chloroquine could be adopted for use in IPTp

Does initiation of GnRH antagonists on cycle day 2 result in a more favourable follicular phase endocrine profile compared to initiation on cycle day 6

Cervix cance

Simultaneous initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment and recFSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF does not affect clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial

Cervix cance

Elevated early follicular progesterone levels and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a prospective intervention study and meta-analysis

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using prospective data in combination with a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: Nested study within a multicenter randomized controlled trial and a systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Reproductive medicine center in an university hospital. PATIENT(S): 158 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) patients. INTERVENTION(S): Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (150-225 IU) administered daily from cycle day 2 onward; GnRH antagonist treatment randomly started on cycle day 2 or 6; assignment into two groups according to P level on cycle day 2: normal or elevated (>4.77 nmol/L or >1.5 ng/mL, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per started cycle. RESULT(S): The incidence of elevated P was 13.3%. A non-statistically-significant difference in OPR was present between the normal and elevated P groups (27.0% vs. 19.0%). No differential impact of early or late GnRH antagonist initiation on the effect of elevated or normal P on OPR was observed. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE from 1972-2013 was performed to identify studies analyzing elevated early P levels in GnRH antagonists. The meta-analysis (n=1,052) demonstrated that elevated P levels statistically significantly decreased the OPR with 15% (95% CI -23, -7 %). Heterogeneity across the studies, presumably based on varying protocols, may have modulated the effect of elevated P. CONCLUSION(S): From the present meta-analysis it appears that early elevated P levels are associated with a lower OPR in GnRH antagonists. The incidence of such a condition, however, is low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00866034

Elevated early follicular progesterone levels and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a prospective intervention study and meta-analysis

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using prospective data in combination with a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: Nested study within a multicenter randomized controlled trial and a systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Reproductive medicine center in an university hospital. PATIENT(S): 158 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) patients. INTERVENTION(S): Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (150-225 IU) administered daily from cycle day 2 onward; GnRH antagonist treatment randomly started on cycle day 2 or 6; assignment into two groups according to P level on cycle day 2: normal or elevated (>4.77 nmol/L or >1.5 ng/mL, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per started cycle. RESULT(S): The incidence of elevated P was 13.3%. A non-statistically-significant difference in OPR was present between the normal and elevated P groups (27.0% vs. 19.0%). No differential impact of early or late GnRH antagonist initiation on the effect of elevated or normal P on OPR was observed. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE from 1972-2013 was performed to identify studies analyzing elevated early P levels in GnRH antagonists. The meta-analysis (n=1,052) demonstrated that elevated P levels statistically significantly decreased the OPR with 15% (95% CI -23, -7 %). Heterogeneity across the studies, presumably based on varying protocols, may have modulated the effect of elevated P. CONCLUSION(S): From the present meta-analysis it appears that early elevated P levels are associated with a lower OPR in GnRH antagonists. The incidence of such a condition, however, is low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00866034

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial

study question: what is the impact of initiating GnRH antagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)?Summary answer: early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation.What is known already: during ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes.Study design, size, duration: this open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included.Participants/materials, setting, methods: recombinant FSH (150–225 IU) was administered daily from CD 2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n = 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n = 309) started on CD 6.Main results and the role of chance: there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P = 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P = 0.6).Limitations, reasons for caution: the study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice.Wider implications of the findings: the present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs.Study funding/competing interests: this study was partially supported by a grant from Merck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono and Wyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Seron

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial

Study question: Whatis the impact of initiatingGnRHantagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? Summary answer: Early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation. What is known already: During ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes. Study design, size, duration: This open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included. Participants/materials, setting,methods: Recombinant FSH(150–225 IU) wasadministered daily fromCD2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n ¼ 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n ¼ 309) started on CD 6. Main results and the role of chance: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P ¼ 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P ¼ 0.6). Limitations, reasons for caution: The study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice. Wider implications of the findings: The present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs. Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was partially supported by a grant fromMerck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support fromthe following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono andWyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Serono