Colbourn, T

Osrin, D

UCL Discovery

Commentwww.thelancet.com/lancetgh   Published online September 29, 2016   http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30258-3 1No reason to change WHO guidelines on cleansing the umbilical cord20 years ago, neonatal survival was not on the global health agenda. In many low-income settings, infants died without recognition, causing untold grief. However, the past two decades have seen steady improvements in neonatal survival on a background of sustained advocacy, a culture of community-based trials, and improvements in quantity and quality of health care, health behaviour, and demand for services. Nevertheless, an annual 2·7 million newborn babies still do not survive their fi rst month of life.1 Focusing on one intervention to address this issue, two African trials in The Lancet Global Health2,3 tested umbilical cord cleansing with antiseptic solution. Supporting evidence to date has come from randomised controlled trials in south Asia, which suggested that cleansing with chlorhexidine solution could reduce both periumbilical infl ammation (omphalitis) and neonatal mortality.4–6 In a previous Comment7 we suggested that the putative eﬀ ects might diminish at scale, that it would be good for families to do the cord cleansing themselves, and that evidence from high-mortality populations in Africa would be helpful. In the interim, a meta-analysis8 estimated the combined risk ratio (RR) for neonatal mortality at 0·77 (95% CI 0·63–0·94).Katherine Semrau and colleagues2 did a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Southern Province, Zambia. Fieldworkers visited women antenatally within 24 h of delivery, and repeatedly during the newborns’ fi rst month of life. Families in the intervention group were given 4% chlorhexidine solution to apply 10 mL, using eyedropper bottles, once per day until cord separation, whereas families in the control group were encouraged to maintain dry cord care. Semrau and colleagues2 reported no diﬀ erence between allocation groups in the primary outcome of neonatal mortality rate (deaths [in the fi rst 28 days post-partum] per 1000 livebirths; RR 1·12, 95% CI 0·88–1·44) or the secondary outcome of occurrence of omphalitis (diagnosed by erythema or purulent discharge; 0·73, 0·47–1·13). Sunil Sazawal and colleagues3 did a community-based, individually-randomised controlled trial in Pemba Island, Tanzania. Maternal–child health workers visited on the day of delivery and days 1, 4, 10, and 28; showed families how to care for the cord; and gave them 4% chlorhexidine solution to apply once per day, using 10 mL dropper bottles, until cord separation. The trial3 began with three comparison groups—dry cord care, chlorhexidine treatment group, or control group using a placebo solution—but the control group was dropped in the second phase of the study. Sazawal and colleagues3 reported no diﬀ erence between allocation groups in Figure: Log odds of neonatal mortality associated with chlorhexidine cord cleansing, by proportion of home deliveries in control group (A) and neonatal mortality in control group (B) Data are from published fi ndings of fi ve trials.2–6 Circles=point estimates of log odds. Bars=confi dence intervals. Triangles=prediction including random eﬀ ects. Shaded area=meta-regression CI.400 60 80 100–1·0–0·500·5ALog odds of neonatal mortalityHome deliveries in control group (%)100 15 20 25 30 35 40–1·0–0·500·5BLog odds of neonatal mortalityNeonatal mortality rate in control group (per 1000 livebirths)ZambiaTanzaniaNepalPakistanBangladeshZambiaTanzaniaNepalPakistanBangladeshLancet Global Health 2016Published OnlineSeptember 29, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30258-3See Online/Articleshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30223-6 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30215-7Comment2 www.thelancet.com/lancetgh   Published online September 29, 2016   http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30258-3neonatal mortality rates (RR 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·09), but babies in the chlorhexidine group had a lower risk of omphalitis than those in the dry cord care group (0·65, 0·61–0·70). Design and randomisation methods diﬀ ered between the two studies, but follow-up was exceptionally successful: almost 100% of babies at 28 days in Zambia2 and 97% in Tanzania.3 On a spectrum of eﬃ  cacy, the trials were pitched toward real-world conditions. The interventions were delivered by project staﬀ , but mothers were encouraged to apply the treatment themselves. Whether or not they did so—and it seems likely that they did (98% compliance was reported in the Zambia study2)—it was an intention-to-treat approach.Two important issues aﬀ ect our interpretation of these fi ndings. First, many women chose institutional delivery (53% of deliveries were at hospitals in Sazawal and colleagues’ trial, and 64% in Semrau and colleagues’ trial2). The latest WHO guidelines9 recommend application of chlorhexidine to the umbilical cord stump for the fi rst week after birth, for infants born at home in environments with high neonatal mortality rates (>30 deaths per 1000 livebirths). Dry cord care is recommended after institutional births or home births in settings with lower neonatal mortality rates.9 Chlorhexidine might be considered as a replacement for harmful applications to the cord stump,9 but Cochrane reviews, a meta-analysis,8 and these two new trials2,3 have not supported an eﬀ ect after hospital births.10,11 Second, the neonatal mortality rates were lower than expected. The sample size for the Zambian study2 was developed on the assumption that the neonatal mortality rate in the control group would be 29·0 deaths per 1000 livebirths. However, the observed rate was 14·4 deaths per 1000 livebirths. The Tanzanian study3 assumed a control group neonatal mortality rate of 31 deaths per 1000 livebirths. The observed neonatal mortality rate was 11·7 deaths per 1000 livebirths. Both trials increased their sample sizes during implementation, yet confi dence intervals around estimates of eﬀ ects on neonatal mortality rates were nevertheless substantial. To address the issue of underpowering, the research groups combined their estimates in a random-eﬀ ects meta-analysis, resulting in a relative risk estimate of 0·99 (95% CI 0·80–1·23) for neonatal mortality by day 28. The three major drivers of newborn mortality are infection, preterm birth, and presumed intrapartum-related compromise. The implicit assumption is that antiseptic cleansing will prevent microbial invasion and reduce deaths from infection. However, as neonatal mortality rates decrease, the proportion of deaths explained by infection reduces in relation to the other two causes. What this means is that the yield in terms of reduction in all-cause mortality as a result of cord antisepsis is likely to be lower in settings with low neonatal mortality rates. To test our assumption, we used the published fi ndings of the fi ve trials2–6 as a basis for conservative meta-regression. The fi gure shows the reduction in mortality associated with varying proportions of home delivery and neonatal mortality rates. Although not signifi cant, the impression is that higher neonatal mortality rates (p=0·109) and a higher proportion of home deliveries (p=0·138) were associated with larger eﬀ ects of cord cleansing on neonatal mortality rates.Along with the individual trial fi ndings, the fi gure is consonant with the current WHO guidelines9 for cord care, to which we recommend no change. Cord cleanliness is part of the suite of hard-won improvements that accompany the increases in survival being seen worldwide. In settings in which neonatal mortality rates remain high, we recommend the kinds of programme that have been associated with reductions in all-cause mortality. These include improvements in institutional quality of care and eﬀ orts to improve community-based practices, both central to the 2014 Every Newborn Action Plan.12*David Osrin, Tim ColbournInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UKd.osrin@ucl.ac.ukDO does not work with but has been a co-author of six publications in the past 5 years with Prof Robert Black, a named author of the paper from Tanzania. The publications were produced by large working groups and DO and TC both either contributed data from their research programmes or were members of a distributed expert group. Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.1 WHO. Global Health Observatory (GHO) data. 2015. http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/neonatal/en/ (accessed Aug 30, 2016).2 Semrau KEA, Herlihy J, Grogan C, et al. Eﬀ ectiveness of 4% chlorhexidine umbilical cord care on neonatal mortality in Southern Province, Zambia (ZamCAT): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2016; published online Sept 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30215-7.3 Sazawal S, Dhingra U, Ali SM, et al. Eﬃ  cacy of chlorhexidine application to umbilical cord on neonatal mortality in Pemba, Tanzania: a community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2016; published online Sept 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30223-6.Commentwww.thelancet.com/lancetgh   Published online September 29, 2016   http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30258-3 34 Soofi  S, Cousens S, Imdad A, Bhutto N, Ali N, Bhutta ZA. Topical application of chlorhexidine to neonatal umbilical cords for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in a rural district of Pakistan: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 1029–36.5 Arifeen SE, Mullany LC, Shah R, et al. The eﬀ ect of cord cleansing with chlorhexidine on neonatal mortality in rural Bangladesh: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 1022–28.6 Mullany LC, Darmstadt GL, Khatry SK, et al. Topical applications of chlorhexidine to the umbilical cord for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in southern Nepal: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2006; 367: 910–18.7 Osrin D, Hill ZE. Chlorhexidine cord cleansing to reduce neonatal mortality. Lancet 2012; 379: 984–86.8 Imdad A, Mullany LC, Baqui AH, et al. The eﬀ ect of umbilical cord cleansing with chlorhexidine on omphalitis and neonatal mortality in community settings in developing countries: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2013; 13 (suppl 3): S15.9 WHO. WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn: 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.10 Imdad A, Bautista RMM, Senen KAA, Uy MEV, Mantaring III JB, Bhutta ZA. Umbilical cord antiseptics for preventing sepsis and death among newborns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 5: CD008635.11 Sinha A, Sazawal S, Pradhan A, Ramji S, Opiyo N. Chlorhexidine skin or cord care for prevention of mortality and infections in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 3: CD007835.12 WHO. Every newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.

No reason to change WHO guidelines on cleansing the umbilical cord.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1520015/1/Osrin_1-s2.0-S2214109X16302583-main.pdf

No reason to change WHO guidelines on cleansing the umbilical cord.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery