Randomized Trial of Artesunate+Amodiaquine, Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine+Amodiaquine, Chlorproguanal-Dapsone and SP for Malaria in Pregnancy in Tanzania

Malaria in pregnancy is serious, and drug resistance in Africa is spreading. Drugs have greater risks in pregnancy and determining the safety and efficacy of drugs in pregnancy is therefore a priority. This study set out to determine the efficacy and safety of several antimalarial drugs and combinations in pregnant women with uncomplicated malaria.Pregnant women with non-severe, slide proven, falciparum malaria were randomised to one of 4 regimes: sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine [SP]; chlorproguanil-dapsone [CD]; SP+amodiaquine [SP+AQ] or amodiaquine+artesunate [AQ+AS]. Randomisation was on a 1ratio2ratio2ratio2 ratio. Women were admitted for treatment, and followed at days 7, 14, 21, 28 after the start of treatment, at delivery and 6 weeks after delivery to determine adverse events, clinical and parasitological outcomes. Primary outcome was parasitological failure by day 28.1433 pregnant women were screened, of whom 272 met entry criteria and were randomised; 28 to SP, 81 to CD, 80 to SP+AQ and 83 to AQ+AS. Follow-up to day 28 post treatment was 251/272 (92%), and to 6 weeks following delivery 91%. By day 28 parasitological failure rates were 4/26 (15%, 95%CI 4-35) in the SP, 18/77 (23%, 95%CI 14-34) in the CD, 1/73 (1% 95%CI 7-0.001) in the SP+AQ and 7/75 (9% 95%CI 4-18) in the AQ+AS arms respectively. After correction by molecular markers for reinfection the parasitological failure rates at day 28 were 18% for CD, 1% for SP+AQ and 4.5% for AQ+AS. There were two maternal deaths during the trial. There was no apparent excess of stillbirths or adverse birth outcomes in any arm. Parasitological responses were strikingly better in pregnant women than in children treated with the same drugs at this site.Failure rates with monotherapy were unacceptably high. The two combinations tested were efficacious and appeared safe. It should not be assumed that efficacy in pregnancy is the same as in children.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00146731

Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study

Background: Clinical outcomes after major surgery are poorly described at the national level. Evidence of heterogeneity between hospitals and health-care systems suggests potential to improve care for patients but this potential remains unconfirmed. The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to assess outcomes after non-cardiac surgery in Europe.Methods: We did this 7 day cohort study between April 4 and April 11, 2011. We collected data describing consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and admission to critical care. We used χ² and Fisher’s exact tests to compare categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables. Significance was set at p<0·05. We constructed multilevel logistic regression models to adjust for the differences in mortality rates between countries.Findings: We included 46 539 patients, of whom 1855 (4%) died before hospital discharge. 3599 (8%) patients were admitted to critical care after surgery with a median length of stay of 1·2 days (IQR 0·9–3·6). 1358 (73%) patients who died were not admitted to critical care at any stage after surgery. Crude mortality rates varied widely between countries (from 1·2% [95% CI 0·0–3·0] for Iceland to 21·5% [16·9–26·2] for Latvia). After adjustment for confounding variables, important differences remained between countries when compared with the UK, the country with the largest dataset (OR range from 0·44 [95% CI 0·19 1·05; p=0·06] for Finland to 6·92 [2·37–20·27; p=0·0004] for Poland).Interpretation: The mortality rate for patients undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery was higher than anticipated. Variations in mortality between countries suggest the need for national and international strategies to improve care for this group of patients.Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Society of Anaesthesiology