Effect of early tranexamic acid administration on mortality, hysterectomy, and other morbidities in women with post-partum haemorrhage (WOMAN): an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Post-partum haemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. Early administration of tranexamic acid reduces deaths due to bleeding in trauma patients. We aimed to assess the effects of early administration of tranexamic acid on death, hysterectomy, and other relevant outcomes in women with post-partum haemorrhage. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women aged 16 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of post-partum haemorrhage after a vaginal birth or caesarean section from 193 hospitals in 21 countries. We randomly assigned women to receive either 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid or matching placebo in addition to usual care. If bleeding continued after 30 min, or stopped and restarted within 24 h of the first dose, a second dose of 1 g of tranexamic acid or placebo could be given. Patients were assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight numbered packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Participants, care givers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. We originally planned to enrol 15 000 women with a composite primary endpoint of death from all-causes or hysterectomy within 42 days of giving birth. However, during the trial it became apparent that the decision to conduct a hysterectomy was often made at the same time as randomisation. Although tranexamic acid could influence the risk of death in these cases, it could not affect the risk of hysterectomy. We therefore increased the sample size from 15 000 to 20 000 women in order to estimate the effect of tranexamic acid on the risk of death from post-partum haemorrhage. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN76912190 (Dec 8, 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00872469; and PACTR201007000192283. Findings Between March, 2010, and April, 2016, 20 060 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (n=10 051) or placebo (n=10 009), of whom 10 036 and 9985, respectively, were included in the analysis. Death due to bleeding was significantly reduced in women given tranexamic acid (155 [1·5%] of 10 036 patients vs 191 [1·9%] of 9985 in the placebo group, risk ratio [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·65–1·00; p=0·045), especially in women given treatment within 3 h of giving birth (89 [1·2%] in the tranexamic acid group vs 127 [1·7%] in the placebo group, RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·52–0·91; p=0·008). All other causes of death did not differ significantly by group. Hysterectomy was not reduced with tranexamic acid (358 [3·6%] patients in the tranexamic acid group vs 351 [3·5%] in the placebo group, RR 1·02, 95% CI 0·88–1·07; p=0·84). The composite primary endpoint of death from all causes or hysterectomy was not reduced with tranexamic acid (534 [5·3%] deaths or hysterectomies in the tranexamic acid group vs 546 [5·5%] in the placebo group, RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·09; p=0·65). Adverse events (including thromboembolic events) did not differ significantly in the tranexamic acid versus placebo group. Interpretation Tranexamic acid reduces death due to bleeding in women with post-partum haemorrhage with no adverse effects. When used as a treatment for postpartum haemorrhage, tranexamic acid should be given as soon as possible after bleeding onset. Funding London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Pfizer, UK Department of Health, Wellcome Trust, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background The viva, or traditional oral examination, is a process where the examiners ask questions and the candidate answers them. While traditional viva has many disadvantages, including subjectivity, low validity, and low reliability, it is advantageous for assessing knowledge, clinical reasoning, and self-confidence, which cannot be assessed by written tests. In order to overcome these disadvantages, structured viva was invented and is claimed to be highly valid, reliable, and acceptable, but this was not confirmed by an overall systematic review or meta-analysis of the studies. The research aims to investigate the studies to reach an overall decision regarding the quality of structured viva as an assessment tool according to the agreed standards in medical education in terms of validity, reliability, and acceptability. Methods This systematic review was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) website reviews, Google Scholars, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for any article addressing the research questions from inception to December 2022. Data analysis was done by the OpenMeta Analyst open-source app, version Windows 10. Results A total of 1385 studies were identified. Of them, 24 were included in the review. Three of the reviewed studies showed higher validity of structured viva by a positive linear correlation coefficient compared with MCQs, MCQs and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and structured theory exam. In the reviewed studies, the reliability of structured viva was high by Cronbach alpha α = 0.80 and α = 0.75 in two different settings, while it was low α = 0.50 for the traditional viva. In the meta-analysis, structured viva was found to be acceptable by overall acceptability of (79.8%, P < 0.001) out of all learners who participated in structured viva as examinees at different levels in health professions education using the available numeric data of 12 studies. The heterogeneity of the data was high (I^2 = 93.506, P < 0.001) thus the analysis was done using the binary random-effects model. Conclusion Structured viva or structured oral examination has high levels of validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education compared to traditional viva

Frequency and management of maternal infection in health facilities in 52 countries (GLOSS): a 1-week inception cohort study

Background Maternal infections are an important cause of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity. We report the main findings of the WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study, which aimed to assess the frequency of maternal infections in health facilities, according to maternal characteristics and outcomes, and coverage of core practices for early identification and management. Methods We did a facility-based, prospective, 1-week inception cohort study in 713 health facilities providing obstetric, midwifery, or abortion care, or where women could be admitted because of complications of pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum, or post-abortion, in 52 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). We obtained data from hospital records for all pregnant or recently pregnant women hospitalised with suspected or confirmed infection. We calculated ratios of infection and infection-related severe maternal outcomes (ie, death or near-miss) per 1000 livebirths and the proportion of intrahospital fatalities across country income groups, as well as the distribution of demographic, obstetric, clinical characteristics and outcomes, and coverage of a set of core practices for identification and management across infection severity groups. Findings Between Nov 28, 2017, and Dec 4, 2017, of 2965 women assessed for eligibility, 2850 pregnant or recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed infection were included. 70·4 (95% CI 67·7–73·1) hospitalised women per 1000 livebirths had a maternal infection, and 10·9 (9·8–12·0) women per 1000 livebirths presented with infection-related (underlying or contributing cause) severe maternal outcomes. Highest ratios were observed in LMICs and the lowest in HICs. The proportion of intrahospital fatalities was 6·8% among women with severe maternal outcomes, with the highest proportion in low-income countries. Infection-related maternal deaths represented more than half of the intrahospital deaths. Around two-thirds (63·9%, n=1821) of the women had a complete set of vital signs recorded, or received antimicrobials the day of suspicion or diagnosis of the infection (70·2%, n=1875), without marked differences across severity groups. Interpretation The frequency of maternal infections requiring management in health facilities is high. Our results suggest that contribution of direct (obstetric) and indirect (non-obstetric) infections to overall maternal deaths is greater than previously thought. Improvement of early identification is urgently needed, as well as prompt management of women with infections in health facilities by implementing effective evidence-based practices