Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia in low-income and middle-income countries (CRADLE-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality. Evidence regarding interventions in a low-income or middle-income setting is scarce. We aimed to evaluate whether planned delivery between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks’ gestation can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity without increasing perinatal complications in India and Zambia. / Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management in women with pre-eclampsia from 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks’ gestation. Participants were recruited from nine hospitals and referral facilities in India and Zambia and randomly assigned to planned delivery or expectant management in a 1:1 ratio by a secure web-based randomisation facility hosted by MedSciNet. Randomisation was stratified by centre and minimised by parity, single-fetus pregnancy or multi-fetal pregnancy, and gestational age. The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity with a superiority hypothesis. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of one or more of: stillbirth, neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission of more than 48 h with a non-inferiority hypothesis (margin of 10% difference). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, 10672137. The trial is closed to recruitment and all follow-up has been completed. / Findings: Between Dec 19, 2019, and March 31, 2022, 565 women were enrolled. 284 women (282 women and 301 babies analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 281 women (280 women and 300 babies analysed) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the primary maternal outcome was not significantly different in the planned delivery group (154 [55%]) compared with the expectant management group (168 [60%]; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·79 to 1·05). The incidence of the primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was non-inferior in the planned delivery group (58 [19%]) compared with the expectant management group (67 [22%]; adjusted risk difference –3·39%, 90% CI –8·67 to 1·90; non-inferiority p<0·0001). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There was a significant reduction in severe maternal hypertension (adjusted RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·99) and stillbirth (0·25, 0·07 to 0·87) associated with planned delivery. There were 12 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 21 in the expectant management group. / Interpretation: Clinicians can safely offer planned delivery to women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, in a low-income or middle-income country. Planned delivery reduces stillbirth, with no increase in neonatal unit admissions or neonatal morbidity and reduces the risk of severe maternal hypertension. Planned delivery from 34 weeks’ gestation should therefore be considered as an intervention to reduce pre-eclampsia associated mortality and morbidity in these settings. / Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Indian Department of Biotechnology

Misoprostol for primary versus secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial

© 2015 RCOG. Objective: To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis. Design: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial. Setting: Healt

Misoprostol for primary versus secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: a cluster‐randomised non‐inferiority community trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above‐average postpartum bleeding, is non‐inferior to universal prophylaxis. DESIGN: A cluster‐randomised non‐inferiority community trial. SETTING: Health sub‐centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India. POPULATION: Women with low‐risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub‐centre and who consented to be part of the study. METHODS: Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher‐level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Misoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference −2.9%, one‐sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non‐inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non‐inferior to universal prophylaxis

The World Health Organization ACTION-I (Antenatal CorTicosteroids for Improving Outcomes in preterm Newborns) Trial: a multi-country, multi-centre, two-arm, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, individually randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent birth in the early preterm period in hospitals in low-resource countries

BACKGROUND: Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) have long been regarded as a cornerstone intervention in mitigating the adverse effects of a preterm birth. However, the safety and efficacy of ACS in hospitals in low-resource countries has not been established in an efficacy trial despite their widespread use. Findings of a large cluster-randomized trial in six low- and middle-income countries showed that efforts to scale up ACS use in low-resource settings can lead to harm. There is equipoise regarding the benefits and harms of ACS use in hospitals in low-resource countries. This randomized controlled trial aims to determine whether ACS are safe and efficacious when given to women at risk of imminent birth in the early preterm period, in hospitals in low-resource countries. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial design is a parallel, two-arm, double-blind, individually randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ACS (dexamethasone) for women at risk of imminent preterm birth. The trial will recruit 6018 women in participating hospitals across five low-resource countries (Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan). The primary objectives are to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with placebo on survival of the baby and maternal infectious morbidity. The primary outcomes are: 1) neonatal death (to 28 completed days of life); 2) any baby death (any stillbirth postrandomization or neonatal death); and 3) a composite outcome to assess possible maternal bacterial infections. The trial will recruit eligible, consenting pregnant women from 26 weeks 0 days to 33 weeks 6 days gestation with confirmed live fetuses, in whom birth is planned or expected within 48 h. The intervention comprises a regimen of intramuscular dexamethasone sodium phosphate. The comparison is an identical placebo regimen (normal saline). A total of 6018 women will be recruited to detect a reduction of 15% or more in neonatal deaths in a two-sided 5% significance test with 90% power (including 10% loss to follow-up). DISCUSSION: Findings of this trial will guide clinicians, programme managers and policymakers on the safety and efficacy of ACS in hospitals in low-resource countries. The trial findings will inform updating of the World Health Organization's global recommendations on ACS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000476336 . Registered on 31 March 2017