The WOMAN Trial (World Maternal Antifibrinolytic Trial): tranexamic acid for the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international randomised, double blind placebo controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Each year, worldwide about 530,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Of the deaths 99% are in low and middle income countries. Obstetric haemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal mortality, most occurring in the postpartum period. Systemic antifibrinolytic agents are widely used in surgery to prevent clot breakdown (fibrinolysis) in order to reduce surgical blood loss. At present there is little reliable evidence from randomised trials on the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Trial aims to determine the effect of early administration of tranexamic acid on mortality, hysterectomy and other morbidities (surgical interventions, blood transfusion, risk of non-fatal vascular events) in women with clinically diagnosed postpartum haemorrhage. The use of health services and safety, especially thromboembolic effect, on breastfed babies will also be assessed. The trial will be a large, pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial among 15,000 women with a clinical diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage. All legally adult women with clinically diagnosed postpartum haemorrhage following vaginal delivery of a baby or caesarean section will potentially be eligible. The fundamental eligibility criterion is the responsible clinician's 'uncertainty' as to whether or not to use an antifibrinolytic agent in a particular woman with postpartum haemorrhage. Treatment will entail a dose of tranexamic acid (1 gram by intravenous injection) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) will be given as soon as possible after randomisation. A second dose may be given if after 30 minutes bleeding continues, or if it stops and restarts within 24 hours after the first dose.</p> <p>The main analyses will be on an 'intention to treat' basis, irrespective of whether the allocated treatment was received or not. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will be based on type of delivery; administration or not of prophylactic uterotonics; and on whether the clinical decision to consider trial entry was based primarily on estimated blood loss alone or on haemodynamic instability. A study with 15,000 women will have over 90% power to detect a 25% reduction from 4% to 3% in the primary endpoint of mortality or hysterectomy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN76912190 and Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00872469</p

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

Background Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. Main text The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. Conclusions The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches — conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.Health Evidence Network Evidence Synthesis; NIH

A narrative review of health research capacity strengthening in low and middle-income countries: lessons for conflict-affected areas

Abstract Conducting health research in conflict-affected areas and other complex environments is difficult, yet vital. However, the capacity to undertake such research is often limited and with little translation into practice, particularly in poorer countries. There is therefore a need to strengthen health research capacity in conflict-affected countries and regions. In this narrative review, we draw together evidence from low and middle-income countries to highlight challenges to research capacity strengthening in conflict, as well as examples of good practice. We find that authorship trends in health research indicate global imbalances in research capacity, with implications for the type and priorities of research produced, equity within epistemic communities and the development of sustainable research capacity in low and middle-income countries. Yet, there is little evidence on what constitutes effective health research capacity strengthening in conflict-affected areas. There is more evidence on health research capacity strengthening in general, from which several key enablers emerge: adequate and sustained financing; effective stewardship and equitable research partnerships; mentorship of researchers of all levels; and effective linkages of research to policy and practice. Strengthening health research capacity in conflict-affected areas needs to occur at multiple levels to ensure sustainability and equity. Capacity strengthening interventions need to take into consideration the dynamics of conflict, power dynamics within research collaborations, the potential impact of technology, and the wider political environment in which they take place