The IDvIP Trial: A two-centre randomised double-blind controlled trial comparing intramuscular diamorphine and intramuscular pethidine for labour analgesia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intramuscular pethidine is routinely used throughout the UK for labour analgesia. Studies have suggested that pethidine provides little pain relief in labour and has a number of side effects affecting mother and neonate. It can cause nausea, vomiting and dysphoria in mothers and can cause reduced fetal heart rate variability and accelerations. Neonatal effects include respiratory depression and impaired feeding. There are few large studies comparing the relative side effects and efficacy of different opioids in labour. A small trial comparing intramuscular pethidine with diamorphine, showed diamorphine to have some benefits over pethidine when used for labour analgesia but the study did not investigate the adverse effects of either opioid.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Intramuscular Diamorphine versus Intramuscular Pethidine (IDvIP) trial is a randomised double-blind two centre controlled trial comparing intramuscular diamorphine and pethidine regarding their analgesic efficacy in labour and their side effects in mother, fetus and neonate. Information about the trial will be provided to women in the antenatal period or in early labour. Consent and recruitment to the trial will be obtained when the mother requests opioid analgesia. The sample size requirement is 406 women with data on primary outcomes. The maternal primary outcomes are pain relief during the first 3 hours after trial analgesia and specifically pain relief after 60 minutes. The neonatal primary outcomes are need for resuscitation and Apgar Score <7 at 1 minute. The secondary outcomes are an additional measure of pain relief, maternal sedation, nausea and vomiting, maternal oxygen saturation, satisfaction with analgesia, whether method of analgesia would be used again, use of Entonox, umbilical arterial and venous pH, fetal heart rate, meconium staining, time from delivery to first breath, Apgar scores at 5 mins, naloxone requirement, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, neonatal haemoglobin oxygen saturation at 30, 60, 90, and 120 mins after delivery, and neonatal sedation and feeding behaviour during first 2 hours.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If the trial demonstrates that diamorphine provides better analgesia with fewer side effects in mother and neonate this could lead to a change in national practice and result in diamorphine becoming the preferred intramuscular opioid for analgesia in labour.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN14898678">ISRCTN14898678</a></p> <p>Eudra No: 2006-003250-18, REC Reference No: 06/Q1702/95, MHRA Authorisation No: 1443/0001/001-0001, NIHR UKCRN reference 6895, RfPB grant PB-PG-0407-13170_IR5</p

Heterogeneity in Health Insurance Coverage Among US Latino Adults

We sought to determine the differences in observed and unobserved factors affecting rates of health insurance coverage between US Latino adults and US Latino adults of Mexican ancestry. Our hypothesis was that Latinos of Mexican ancestry have worse health insurance coverage than their non-Mexican Latino counterparts. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) database from 1999–2007 consists of 33,847 Latinos. We compared Latinos of Mexican ancestry to non-Mexican Latinos in the initial descriptive analysis of health insurance coverage. Disparities in health insurance coverage across Latino categories were later analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression framework, which adjusts for confounding variables. The Blinder-Oaxaca technique was applied to parse out differences in health insurance coverage into observed and unobserved components. US Latinos of Mexican ancestry consistently had lower rates of health insurance coverage than did US non-Mexican Latinos. Approximately 65% of these disparities can be attributed to differences in observed characteristics of the Mexican ancestry population in the US (e.g., age, sex, income, employment status, education, citizenship, language and health condition). The remaining disparities may be attributed to unobserved heterogeneity that may include unobserved employment-related information (e.g., type of employment and firm size) and behavioral and idiosyncratic factors (e.g., risk aversion and cultural differences). This study confirmed that Latinos of Mexican ancestry were less likely to have health insurance than were non-Mexican Latinos. Moreover, while differences in observed socioeconomic and demographic factors accounted for most of these disparities, the share of unobserved heterogeneity accounted for 35% of these differences

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Diamorphine for pain relief in labour : a randomised controlled trial comparing intramuscular injection and patient-controlled analgesia

Objectives To compare the efficacy of diamorphine administered by a patient-controlled pump (patient-controlled analgesia) with intramuscular administration for pain relief in labour.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting The South Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust.Sample Primigravidae and multigravidae in labour at term (37–42 weeks).Methods Women were randomised in labour to the study (patient-controlled analgesia) or control group (intramuscular). Randomisation was achieved through a random permuted block design stratified by parity. Study group women were given a loading dose of 1.2 mg diamorphine intravenously and then attached to the pump. Control group women received intramuscular diamorphine as per hospital protocol. Participants were also given 3 mg of buccal Stemetil. Data were collected throughout labour and at six postnatal weeks.Main outcome measures Analgesia requirements during labour and women's satisfaction with the method of pain relief.Results Women in the study group (patient-controlled analgesia) used significantly less diamorphine than women in the control group (intramuscular) but were significantly more likely to state that they were very dissatisfied with their use of diamorphine and were significantly more likely to opt out of the trial before the birth of the baby. The majority of women in both groups used other analgesia concurrent with diamorphine such as Entonox, aromatherapy or TENS.Conclusions Patient-controlled analgesia administration of diamorphine for the relief of pain in labour offers no significant advantages over intramuscular administration. The results also suggest that diamorphine is a poor analgesic for labour pain irrespective of the mode of administration