Optimising antenatal corticosteroid administration for women | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Optimising antenatal corticosteroid administration for women with anticipated preterm birth

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Strategies for optimising antenatal corticosteroid administration for women with anticipated preterm birth

What is the issue?

A pregnancy normally lasts between 37 and 40 completed weeks. If the birth takes place earlier than that and the baby is born prematurely, there is a high risk that the baby will have breathing problems and might suffer from other complications. There is also a risk that the premature baby dies, especially if it is born in a facility that does not have advanced care for newborns. Mothers with signs of premature labour or planned for elective preterm birth are commonly injected with steroids, which can help mature the baby's lungs and prevent severe breathing problems once the baby is born.

Why is this important?

In high‐income countries and in hospital settings with advanced care facilities, administration of steroids for mothers who are at risk of giving birth prematurely is standard care. As this is not always the case in low‐income countries, where premature birth is more common compared to other countries, there have been worldwide efforts to increase the use of steroids in these settings. However, as there is usually also a lack of other supportive newborn care and accurate assessment of gestational age in these settings, the benefits and harms of increasing the use of steroids, compared to usual approach of care, need to be evaluated.

What evidence did we find?

We searched for evidence in September 2019 and identified three studies that met our inclusion criteria. All three studies assessed interventions that aimed to promote the use of steroids for mothers at risk of giving birth prematurely, while we did not find any study that assessed interventions that aimed to restrict the use of steroids. Two studies were conducted in hospital settings of mostly high‐income countries, while one study was conducted in low‐resource settings in six low‐and middle‐income countries. Two studies found that the interventions led to an increase in the use of steroids, while one study found no difference in the use of steroids. One large study in low‐resource settings found that among women who delivered preterm infants, more women in the intervention group (45%) received steroids compared to women the control group (10%) (low‐certainty evidence). However, in the group of women who did not deliver preterm infants more women in the intervention group (10%) compared to the control group (1%) received steroids although they did not need them (low‐certainty evidence).

Only the one large study that was conducted in low‐resource settings assessed important outcomes. The study found that perinatal death (death of the baby before birth or within the first seven days of life), stillbirth (death of the baby before birth), and neonatal death before 28 days (death of the baby during the first 28 days of life) probably occurs more often among all babies (not just those that are born prematurely) when the use of steroids is actively promoted compared to usual care (moderate‐certainty evidence). It also found that infection in the mother may be more common when strategies to increase the use of steroids are in place. However, there may be little or no difference between groups in the mothers' risk of dying (low‐certainty evidence).

What does this mean?

In low‐resource settings, a strategy of actively promoting the use of steroids in mothers at risk of giving birth prematurely could be harmful to infants and their mothers at population level. Policy makers need to carefully weigh the benefits against the potential risks when considering scaling up of this intervention in low‐resource settings. There is a need to do more research on the effectiveness of approaches to scale up the use of steroids for mothers at risk of premature delivery in low‐resource countries.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ To determine the effect of simulation‐based obstetric team training on patient outcomes, performance of the obstetric care team in practice and educational settings, and trainees' experience, when compared to no training or another type of training.\ What is the issue?\ Obstetric emergencies are pregnancy‐related conditions that can threaten the well‐being of mother and baby in pregnancy or around birth. These emergencies can happen at any time, result in high‐level pressure with high‐stakes decisions, and technical and ethical challenges of caring for both the mother and her child. Organisational and human factors are considered to be major sources of preventable, substandard care. Simulation‐based team training focuses on building a system that will anticipate errors, improve patient outcomes and the performance of obstetric care teams.\ Why is this important?\ Adequate performance of the obstetric care team is essential for safe management of obstetric emergencies. Inadequate performance of care teams can lead to substandard care resulting in poor outcomes for mothers and their children. Simulation‐based obstetric team training has been recommended to improve the overall outcome and quality of obstetric health care. Its effectiveness needs to be evaluated.\ What evidence did we find?\ The search was performed in April 2020. We identified eight randomised studies. Six cluster‐randomised studies compared simulation‐based obstetric team training with no training.\ Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome): simulation‐based obstetric team training may make little or no difference for a combination of adverse events in the mother or the infant. We are uncertain whether simulation‐based obstetric team training affects the risk of death for the mother. However, it may reduce the risk of death for the newborn baby. Simulation‐based obstetric team training may have little to no effect on low Apgar score but it probably reduces trauma after shoulder dystocia and probably slightly reduces the number of caesarean deliveries.\ Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice): we found that simulation‐based obstetric team training probably improves the performance of the obstetric teams in practice.\ What does this mean?\ Simulation‐based obstetric team training might be helpful for the improvement of team performance and specific maternal and perinatal outcomes. High‐certainty evidence was lacking due to limitations in the way the studies were designed and conducted. Six studies were performed in high‐income countries (the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA), and two studies were performed in a middle‐income country (Mexico).This meant that we could not combine all the data to reach robust conclusions. Future studies investigating simulation‐based obstetric team training compared to different designs of training courses should carefully consider how and when to measure the effects of the interventions.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48d99ed4-a588-4256-9b11-6082d11958e4)

\ \ Review question\ We reviewed the evidence for effects of nutrition education about appropriate feeding practices during weaning on growth and development in children born at term gestation.\ Background\ Around the world, over 150 million children are undernourished and over 42 million are overweight and obese. Providing families with appropriate education about feeding practices during weaning may help to optimise nutrition while helping to protect children who are at risk of undernutrition, as well as those susceptible to being overweight and obese.\ Study characteristics\ We examined research published up to December 2019 and found 21 clinical trials recruiting 14,241 babies. The nutrition education provided in all included studies, whereby analysis could be pooled together, was aimed at reducing the risk of undernutrition in childhood. Five studies were undertaken in high‐income countries, but the findings reported could not be included and pooled together in this review.\ Key results\ We found that giving nutrition education about appropriate feeding practices during weaning to families in low‐ to moderate‐income settings may improve weight and height at 12 months of age. We are very uncertain about the effects of nutrition education on children's development and risk of anaemia at one year of age, as only two studies reported each of these outcomes. Therefore, these results are described only in the text. We did not find any studies that assessed the effects of nutrition education on children's risk of overweight and obesity and reported outcomes that could be pooled together in this review.\ Certainty of evidence\ The certainty of evidence for the reduction in risk of childhood undernutrition with nutrition education is low to moderate at best due to limitations in study design and differences among the studies included in our review. The amount of improvement in growth noted is small and of unclear clinical significance. More long‐term studies are needed to see if this improvement continues into later life, leading to bigger improvements. We rated the certainty of evidence for other outcomes included in this study as low due to the limited number of included studies.\ Further research is needed to determine whether nutrition education can reduce risks of overnutrition and obesity in children.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/55900c0f-5f9b-4611-8e80-bce5bee94a3d)

\ \ We set out to assess the ability of antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and dipyridamole, to prevent women from developing pre‐eclampsia during pregnancy and to improve health outcomes for them and their babies. We also wanted to find out whether these medicines had any undesirable effects for the mother or baby.\ What is the question?\ Do low doses of aspirin help to prevent pre‐eclampsia, and reduce the number of preterm births before 37 weeks, small‐for‐gestational‐age babies, infant deaths and other unwanted effects?\ Why is this important?\ Pre‐eclampsia is a condition experienced by some women during pregnancy and is evident as high blood pressure and protein in the urine. This condition can lead to serious complications for the mother and her baby (in fact, it is one of the leading causes of illness and death in pregnancy). The mother’s placenta may not be functioning properly, which limits the blood supply to the unborn baby so that it is at risk of poor growth and being born early as a result of preterm labour, or needing to be delivered early. Pre‐eclampsia affects the platelets in the women’s blood so that they are more ready to clump and cause the blood to clot. Antiplatelet drugs like aspirin prevent blood clotting and have a role in preventing pre‐eclampsia and its complications.\ What evidence did we find?\ We searched for randomised controlled trials in March 2018. Our review includes 77 trials, involving 40,249 women and their babies, although it wasn't possible to include results form three of these trials (233 women) . We included information about the results for women and babies in two different formats: 36 trials (34,514 women) reported 'individual participant data' (IPD), where we received information about each of the individuals involved; all the other trials reported 'aggregate data' (AD), where each study reports the average information about the individuals involved in the study. By using IPD, we could conduct very thorough and accurate analyses; and by combining both the AD and the IPD, we could include all the available information on this question.\ Nine of the trials included more than 1000 women, and all of these large trials were at low risk of bias. Low‐dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Almost all the women were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation. Most women were at risk of developing pre‐eclampsia, and the trials included women with normal blood pressure, existing long‐term high blood pressure or pregnancy‐induced high blood pressure. High‐quality evidence showed that the use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of pre‐eclampsia by 18%, or less than one sixth (36,716 women, 60 trials). This meant that 61 women had to be treated with an antiplatelet drug for one woman to benefit by avoiding pre‐eclampsia. The risk of preterm birth was reduced by 9% (35,212 women, 47 trials) and the number of infant deaths before or around the time of birth was reduced by 15% (35,391 women, 52 trials). Antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of small‐for‐gestational‐age babies (35,761 mothers, 50 trials) and pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes (17,382 mothers; 13 trials). Moderate‐quality evidence showed that only slightly more women lost more than 500 mL of blood immediately after birth, termed postpartum haemorrhage (23,769 mothers, 19 trials), indicating that aspirin is safe. Doses of aspirin less than 75 mg appear to be safe. Higher doses might be better, but we do not know whether they increase adverse effects.\ What does this mean?\ Low doses of aspirin slightly reduce the risk of pre‐eclampsia and its complications. As most women in this review were in trials evaluating low‐dose aspirin, the reassurance about the safety of aspirin may not apply to higher doses or other antiplatelet agents. Further research should aim to identify women who are most likely to respond to low‐dose aspirin treatment. While it is possible that higher doses of aspirin may be more effective, further studies are needed to determine whether higher doses are both more effective and safe for women and babies.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/5d2fb8ae-0d63-45c1-83a2-5ed81e548dc9)

\ \ Do omega‐3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) taken during pregnancy improve health outcomes for babies & their mothers?\ Cochrane Review; 70 trials (19,927 women); mostly comparing omega‐3 LCPUFA vs. placebo or with no omega-3.\ Key findings\ Incidence of preterm birth (before 37 weeks) & very preterm birth (before 34 weeks) was lower in women who received omega‐3 LCPUFA compared with no additional omega‐3. There were also fewer babies with low birthweight. However, omega‐3 LCPUFA probably increased the incidence of pregnancies continuing beyond 42 weeks, although there was no difference identified in induction of labour for post‐term pregnancies. The risk of the baby dying or being very sick & going to neonatal intensive care may be lower with omega‐3 LCPUFA compared with no omega‐3. No differences were found between groups for serious adverse events for mothers or in postnatal depression. Very few differences between the omega‐3 LCPUFA groups & no omega‐3 groups were observed in child development & growth.\ 11 reported they had received industry funding. When we omitted these trials from the main outcomes (e.g. preterm birth & very preterm birth) it made very little, or no difference, to the results.\ The quality of the evidence from the included studies ranged from high to very low; this affected the certainty of the findings for different outcomes.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/7bc60148-3d3f-4430-b4eb-a7b5b5a3ac92)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)