Interventions for supporting parents' decisions about autopsy after stillbirth (Review)

Background: Stillbirth remains one of the least understood areas of infant death and accurate data on the causes of stillbirth are the cornerstone of stillbirth prevention. An autopsy examination remains the gold standard post-mortem investigation for stillbirth. However, decisions about post-mortem investigations, particularly autopsy are difficult. The purpose of this review is to examine the effectiveness of methods to help parents who have experienced a stillbirth decide whether to have post-mortem investigations, including whether to have an autopsy performed. Objectives: The primary objectives were a) to examine the effectiveness of interventions to support parents' decisions about autopsy consent after a stillbirth on outcomes for parents, and b) to determine autopsy rates. Secondary objectives were to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 July 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 24 July 2012), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister (mRCT) (18 September 2012) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (18 September 2012). We also searched the websites of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity (SANDS) and International Stillbirth Alliance (ISA) (18 September 2012) and then subsequently searched the websites of all the ISA member organisations. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed specifically to support parents who have experienced a stillbirth make decisions about their options for post-mortem investigations including all investigations after stillbirth compared with usual care. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened citations against the selection criteria. Main results: No studies meeting the review inclusion criteria were identified. A search of 40 websites associated with supporting parents who experience stillbirth also found little reference to, or information about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations. Authors' conclusions: Support for parents making decisions about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations after stillbirth must rely on the ad hoc knowledge and experience of those involved at the time

A multi-centre, open label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority Trial to compare the efficacy of URsodeoxycholic acid with RIFampicin in the management of women with severe early onset Intrahepatic Cholestasis of pregnancy : the TURRIFIC randomised trial

BackgroundSevere early onset (less than 34weeks gestation) intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.1% of pregnant women in Australia and is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth, fetal hypoxia and compromise, spontaneous preterm birth, as well as increased frequencies of pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. ICP is often familial and overlaps with other cholestatic disorders.Treatment options for ICP are not well established, although there are limited data to support the use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to relieve pruritus, the main symptom. Rifampicin, a widely used antibiotic including in pregnant women, is effective in reducing pruritus in non-pregnancy cholestasis and has been used as a supplement to UDCA in severe ICP. Many women with ICP are electively delivered preterm, although there are no randomised data to support this approach.MethodsWe have initiated an international multicentre randomised clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy of rifampicin tablets (300mg bd) with that of UDCA tablets (up to 2000mg daily) in reducing pruritus in women with ICP, using visual pruritus scores as a measuring tool.DiscussionOur study will be the first to examine the outcomes of treatment specifically in the severe early onset form of ICP, comparing "standard" UDCA therapy with rifampicin, and so be able to provide for the first-time high-quality evidence for use of rifampicin in severe ICP. It will also allow an assessment of feasibility of a future trial to test whether elective early delivery in severe ICP is beneficial.Trial identifiersAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration Number (ANZCTR): 12618000332224p (29/08/2018). HREC No: HREC/18/WCHN/36.EudraCT number: 2018-004011-44.IRAS: 272398.NHMRC registration: APP1152418 and APP117853.Peer reviewe

A multi-centre, open label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority Trial to compare the efficacy of URsodeoxycholic acid with RIFampicin in the management of women with severe early onset Intrahepatic Cholestasis of pregnancy: the TURRIFIC randomised trial

BackgroundSevere early onset (less than 34weeks gestation) intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.1% of pregnant women in Australia and is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth, fetal hypoxia and compromise, spontaneous preterm birth, as well as increased frequencies of pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. ICP is often familial and overlaps with other cholestatic disorders.Treatment options for ICP are not well established, although there are limited data to support the use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to relieve pruritus, the main symptom. Rifampicin, a widely used antibiotic including in pregnant women, is effective in reducing pruritus in non-pregnancy cholestasis and has been used as a supplement to UDCA in severe ICP. Many women with ICP are electively delivered preterm, although there are no randomised data to support this approach.MethodsWe have initiated an international multicentre randomised clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy of rifampicin tablets (300mg bd) with that of UDCA tablets (up to 2000mg daily) in reducing pruritus in women with ICP, using visual pruritus scores as a measuring tool.DiscussionOur study will be the first to examine the outcomes of treatment specifically in the severe early onset form of ICP, comparing "standard" UDCA therapy with rifampicin, and so be able to provide for the first-time high-quality evidence for use of rifampicin in severe ICP. It will also allow an assessment of feasibility of a future trial to test whether elective early delivery in severe ICP is beneficial.Trial identifiersAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration Number (ANZCTR): 12618000332224p (29/08/2018). HREC No: HREC/18/WCHN/36.EudraCT number: 2018-004011-44.IRAS: 272398.NHMRC registration: APP1152418 and APP117853

Peripartum ovarian masses

K. George and T. Y. Khon