17 research outputs found

    Safety of daily low-dose aspirin use during pregnancy in low-income and middle-income countries

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND The daily use of low-dose aspirin may be a safe, widely available, and inexpensive intervention for reducing the risk of preterm birth. Data on the potential side effects of low-dose aspirin use during pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries are needed. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess differences in unexpected emergency medical visits and potential maternal side effects from a randomized, double-blind, multicountry, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose aspirin use (81 mg daily, from 6 to 36 weeks’ gestation). STUDY DESIGN This study was a secondary analysis of data from the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction In Nulliparas trial, a trial of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health conducted in India (2 sites), Pakistan, Guatemala, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and Zambia. The outcomes for this analysis were unexpected emergency medical visits and the occurrence of the following potential side effects—overall and separately—nausea, vomiting, rash or hives, diarrhea, gastritis, vaginal bleeding, allergic reaction, and any other potential side effects. Analyses were performed overall and by geographic region. RESULTS Between the aspirin (n=5943) and placebo (n=5936) study groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of unexpected emergency medical visits or the risk of any potential side effect (overall). Of the 8 potential side effects assessed, only 1 (rash or hives) presented a different risk by treatment group (4.2% in the aspirin group vs 3.5% in the placebo group; relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.43; P=.042). CONCLUSION The daily use of low-dose aspirin seems to be a safe intervention for reducing the risk of preterm birth and well tolerated by nulliparous pregnant women between 6 and 36 weeks’ gestation in low- and middle-income countries

    COVID-19 symptoms and antibody positivity among unvaccinated pregnant women: An observational study in seven countries from the global network

    No full text
    Objective: To determine the relation of COVID-19 symptoms to COVID-19 antibody positivity among unvaccinated pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).Design: COVID-19 infection status measured by antibody positivity at delivery was compared with the symptoms of COVID-19 in the current pregnancy in a prospective, observational cohort study in seven LMICs.Setting: The study was conducted among women in the Global Network for Women\u27s and Children\u27s Health\u27s Maternal and Newborn Health Registry (MNHR), a prospective, population-based study in Kenya, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Bangladesh, Pakistan, India (Belagavi and Nagpur sites) and Guatemala.Population: Pregnant women enrolled in the ongoing pregnancy registry at study sites.Methods: Data on COVID-19 symptoms during the current pregnancy were collected by trained staff between October 2020 and June 2022. COVID-19 antibody testing was performed on samples collected at delivery. The relation between COVID-19 antibody positivity and symptoms was assessed using generalised linear models with a binomial distribution adjusting for site and symptoms.Main outcome measures: COVID-19 antibody status and symptoms of COVID-19 among pregnant women.Results: Among 19 218 non-vaccinated pregnant women who were evaluated, 14.1% of antibody-positive women had one or more symptoms compared with 13.4% in antibody-negative women. Overall, 85.3% of antibody-positive women reported no COVID-19 symptoms during the present pregnancy. Reported fever was significantly associated with antibody status (relative risk [RR] 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-11.18; P = 0.008). A multiple variable model adjusting for site and all eight symptoms during pregnancy showed similar results (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23; P = 0.012). None of the other symptoms was significantly related to antibody positivity.Conclusions: In a population-based cohort in LMICs, unvaccinated pregnant women who were antibody-positive had slightly more symptoms during their pregnancy and a small but significantly greater increase in fever. However, for prevalence studies, evaluating COVID-19-related symptoms does not appear to be useful in differentiating pregnant women who have had a COVID-19 infection

    Azithromycin to prevent sepsis or death in women planning a vaginal birth

    No full text
    Background: The use of azithromycin reduces maternal infection in women during planned cesarean delivery, but its effect on those with planned vaginal delivery is unknown. Data are needed on whether an intrapartum oral dose of azithromycin would reduce maternal and offspring sepsis or death.Methods: In this multicountry, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we assigned women who were in labor at 28 weeks\u27 gestation or more and who were planning a vaginal delivery to receive a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo. The two primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis. During an interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial for maternal benefit.Results: A total of 29,278 women underwent randomization. The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group than in the placebo group (1.6% vs. 2.4%), with a relative risk of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.79; P\u3c0.001), but the incidence of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis was similar (10.5% vs. 10.3%), with a relative risk of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.09; P = 0.56). The difference in the maternal primary outcome appeared to be driven mainly by the incidence of sepsis (1.5% in the azithromycin group and 2.3% in the placebo group), with a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77); the incidence of death from any cause was 0.1% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.97). Neonatal sepsis occurred in 9.8% and 9.6% of the infants, respectively (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10). The incidence of stillbirth was 0.4% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53); neonatal death within 4 weeks after birth occurred in 1.5% in both groups (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.24). Azithromycin was not associated with a higher incidence in adverse events.Conclusions: Among women planning a vaginal delivery, a single oral dose of azithromycin resulted in a significantly lower risk of maternal sepsis or death than placebo but had little effect on newborn sepsis or death. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; A-PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03871491.)

    A Comparison of Colorimetric Assessment of Vaginal pH with Nugent Score for the Detection of Bacterial Vaginosis

    Get PDF
    Background. A Nugent score > 7 has been defined as the gold standard for the diagnosis for bacterial vaginosis (BV), though it is resource intensive and impractical as point of care testing. We sought to determine if colorimetric assessment of vaginal pH can accurately predict the occurrence of BV. Methods. We performed a planned subanalysis of 1,216 pregnant women between 13 0/7 and 19 6/7 weeks who underwent vaginal examination as part of a randomized controlled trial. Using a standardized technique, specimens were obtained for colorimetric assessment and two separate slides for Gram staining. These slides were subsequently evaluated by two independent blinded microbiologists for Nugent scoring. Results. Interrater reliability of the interpretation of the Nugent score was excellent (intraclass correlation-individual 0.93 (95 CI 0.92 to 0.94) and average 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97)). The sensitivity of an elevated pH > 5 for a Nugent score > 7 was 21.9% while the specificity was 84.5%. The positive predictive value in our population was 33.7% with a negative predictive value of 75.0%. Conclusion. Though the Nugent score is internally accurate, the prediction of BV using vaginal pH alone has poor sensitivity and specificity
    corecore