Randomised controlled trial of early frenotomy in breastfed infants with mild-moderate tongue-tie

TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel group, pragmatic trial. SETTING: A large UK maternity hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Term infants <2 weeks old with a mild or moderate degree of tongue-tie, and their mothers who were having difficulties breastfeeding. OBJECTIVES: To determine if immediate frenotomy was better than standard breastfeeding support. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to an early frenotomy intervention group or a ‘standard care’ comparison group. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was breastfeeding at 5 days, with secondary outcomes of breastfeeding self-efficacy and pain on feeding. Final assessment was at 8 weeks; 20 also had qualitative interviews. Researchers assessing outcomes, but not participants, were blinded to group assignment. RESULTS: 107 infants were randomised, 55 to the intervention group and 52 to the comparison group. Five-day outcome measures were available for 53 (96%) of the intervention group and 52 (100%) of the comparison group, and intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary outcome—Latch, Audible swallowing, nipple Type, Comfort, Hold score. Frenotomy did improve the tongue-tie and increased maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy. At 5 days, there was a 15.5% increase in bottle feeding in the comparison group compared with a 7.5% increase in the intervention group. After the 5-day clinic, 44 of the comparison group had requested a frenotomy; by 8 weeks only 6 (12%) were breastfeeding without a frenotomy. At 8 weeks, there were no differences between groups in the breastfeeding measures or in the infant weight. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Early frenotomy did not result in an objective improvement in breastfeeding but was associated with improved self-efficacy. The majority in the comparison arm opted for the intervention after 5 days

Tales of the unexpected: the selection of British party leaders since 1963

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Leader of the Labour Party in 2015 stunned observers and practitioners of British politics alike. In this article, we first outline a theoretical framework that purports to explain why political parties operating in parliamentary systems choose the leaders they do. We then examine 32 leadership successions involving five major British parties since 1963, and note that many of these were unexpected, in that they were triggered by unforeseen circumstances, such as the sudden death or resignation of the incumbent. Examining each party in turn, we briefly explain why the winners won and identify at least eight cases (a quarter of our sample) where a candidate widely expected to prevail at the outset was ultimately defeated by a ‘dark horse’, ‘second favourite’ or even ‘rank outsider’. Of these, Corbyn’s election in 2015 was the most unexpected and, consistent with the findings of studies of party leadership conventions in other parliamentary systems, namely Canada and Spain, suggests that ideological and policy concerns are sometimes more important than considerations of party unity and electability, especially when a leadership contest is dominated by party activists

BMQ

BMQ: Boston Medical Quarterly was published from 1950-1966 by the Boston University School of Medicine and the Massachusetts Memorial Hospitals

Effects of antibiotic resistance, drug target attainment, bacterial pathogenicity and virulence, and antibiotic access and affordability on outcomes in neonatal sepsis: an international microbiology and drug evaluation prospective substudy (BARNARDS)

Background Sepsis is a major contributor to neonatal mortality, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). WHO advocates ampicillin–gentamicin as first-line therapy for the management of neonatal sepsis. In the BARNARDS observational cohort study of neonatal sepsis and antimicrobial resistance in LMICs, common sepsis pathogens were characterised via whole genome sequencing (WGS) and antimicrobial resistance profiles. In this substudy of BARNARDS, we aimed to assess the use and efficacy of empirical antibiotic therapies commonly used in LMICs for neonatal sepsis. Methods In BARNARDS, consenting mother–neonates aged 0–60 days dyads were enrolled on delivery or neonatal presentation with suspected sepsis at 12 BARNARDS clinical sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. Stillborn babies were excluded from the study. Blood samples were collected from neonates presenting with clinical signs of sepsis, and WGS and minimum inhibitory concentrations for antibiotic treatment were determined for bacterial isolates from culture-confirmed sepsis. Neonatal outcome data were collected following enrolment until 60 days of life. Antibiotic usage and neonatal outcome data were assessed. Survival analyses were adjusted to take into account potential clinical confounding variables related to the birth and pathogen. Additionally, resistance profiles, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic probability of target attainment, and frequency of resistance (ie, resistance defined by in-vitro growth of isolates when challenged by antibiotics) were assessed. Questionnaires on health structures and antibiotic costs evaluated accessibility and affordability. Findings Between Nov 12, 2015, and Feb 1, 2018, 36 285 neonates were enrolled into the main BARNARDS study, of whom 9874 had clinically diagnosed sepsis and 5749 had available antibiotic data. The four most commonly prescribed antibiotic combinations given to 4451 neonates (77·42%) of 5749 were ampicillin–gentamicin, ceftazidime–amikacin, piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin, and amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin. This dataset assessed 476 prescriptions for 442 neonates treated with one of these antibiotic combinations with WGS data (all BARNARDS countries were represented in this subset except India). Multiple pathogens were isolated, totalling 457 isolates. Reported mortality was lower for neonates treated with ceftazidime–amikacin than for neonates treated with ampicillin–gentamicin (hazard ratio [adjusted for clinical variables considered potential confounders to outcomes] 0·32, 95% CI 0·14–0·72; p=0·0060). Of 390 Gram-negative isolates, 379 (97·2%) were resistant to ampicillin and 274 (70·3%) were resistant to gentamicin. Susceptibility of Gram-negative isolates to at least one antibiotic in a treatment combination was noted in 111 (28·5%) to ampicillin–gentamicin; 286 (73·3%) to amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin; 301 (77·2%) to ceftazidime–amikacin; and 312 (80·0%) to piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin. A probability of target attainment of 80% or more was noted in 26 neonates (33·7% [SD 0·59]) of 78 with ampicillin–gentamicin; 15 (68·0% [3·84]) of 27 with amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin; 93 (92·7% [0·24]) of 109 with ceftazidime–amikacin; and 70 (85·3% [0·47]) of 76 with piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin. However, antibiotic and country effects could not be distinguished. Frequency of resistance was recorded most frequently with fosfomycin (in 78 isolates [68·4%] of 114), followed by colistin (55 isolates [57·3%] of 96), and gentamicin (62 isolates [53·0%] of 117). Sites in six of the seven countries (excluding South Africa) stated that the cost of antibiotics would influence treatment of neonatal sepsis

Part VII : Interventions

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance activities in South Africa have been described in Part V of this report. Surveillance – knowing the levels of resistance and the trends around the country and in different types of institutions – is essential, but is only useful to the extent that the data influence practice. That link is not made automatically, nor is it always easy. Choices must be made among the available interventions based on what will work best in a given situation, and taking into consideration feasibility, cost, likely impact, acceptability to patients and providers, political will, etc. Clearly, surveillance and recent studies can inform revisions of the essential drugs list (EDL) and standard treatment guidelines (STGs). What is more difficult but still possible is that these data can influence and change antibiotic prescribing practices and result in policy formulation geared to limit inappropriate antibiotic use and, consequently, AMR and its spread. However, so far the efficacy and clinical outcomes of both EDLs and STGs have, since their implementation, not been adequately evaluated. Reducing the burden of infectious diseases also reduces the need for antibiotics but, primarily, prevents illness. Vaccination and infection prevention and control in hospitals and other health care facilities are the two critical interventions in this category. In this section, the status and challenges of all these interventions in South Africa are reviewed.http://www.samj.org.z