Testing a home-based model of care using misoprostol for prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in Badakhshan province, Afghanistan.
Advance distribution
Community health workers (CHWs)
Home-births
Misoprostol
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)
Prophylaxis
Self-administration
Treatment
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jun 2020
05 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2019
accepted:
24
05
2020
entrez:
7
6
2020
pubmed:
7
6
2020
medline:
7
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. In Afghanistan, where most births take place at home without the assistance of a skilled birth attendant, there is a need for options to manage PPH in community-based settings. Misoprostol, a uterotonic that has been used as prophylaxis at the household level and has also been proven to be effective in treating PPH in hospital settings, is one possible option. A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted in six districts in Badakhshan Province, Afghanistan to test the effectiveness and safety of administering 800mcg sublingual misoprostol to women after a home birth for treatment of excessive blood loss. Consenting women were enrolled prior to delivery and given 600mcg misoprostol to self-administer orally as prophylaxis. Community health workers (CHW) were trained to observe for signs of PPH after delivery and if PPH was diagnosed, administer the study medication (misoprostol or placebo) and immediately refer the woman. A hemoglobin (Hb) decline of 2 g/dL or greater, measured pre- and post-delivery, served as the primary outcome; side effects, additional interventions, and transfer rates were also analyzed. Among the 1884 women who delivered at home, nearly all (98.7%) reported self-use of misoprostol for PPH prevention. A small fraction was diagnosed with PPH (4.4%, 82/1884) and was administered treatment. Hb outcomes, including the proportion of women with a Hb drop of 2 g/dL or greater, were similar between the study groups (misoprostol: 56.4% (22/39), placebo: 60.6% (20/33), p = 0.45). Significantly more women randomized to receive misoprostol experienced shivering (82.5% vs. placebo: 61.5%, p = 0.03). Other side effects were similar between study groups and none required treatment, including among the subset of 39 women, who received misoprostol for both of its PPH indications. While the study did not document a clinical benefit associated with misoprostol for treatment of PPH, study findings suggest that use of misoprostol for both prevention and treatment in the same birth as well as its use by lay level providers in home births does not result in any safety concerns. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01508429 Registered on December 1, 2011.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. In Afghanistan, where most births take place at home without the assistance of a skilled birth attendant, there is a need for options to manage PPH in community-based settings. Misoprostol, a uterotonic that has been used as prophylaxis at the household level and has also been proven to be effective in treating PPH in hospital settings, is one possible option.
METHODS
METHODS
A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted in six districts in Badakhshan Province, Afghanistan to test the effectiveness and safety of administering 800mcg sublingual misoprostol to women after a home birth for treatment of excessive blood loss. Consenting women were enrolled prior to delivery and given 600mcg misoprostol to self-administer orally as prophylaxis. Community health workers (CHW) were trained to observe for signs of PPH after delivery and if PPH was diagnosed, administer the study medication (misoprostol or placebo) and immediately refer the woman. A hemoglobin (Hb) decline of 2 g/dL or greater, measured pre- and post-delivery, served as the primary outcome; side effects, additional interventions, and transfer rates were also analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 1884 women who delivered at home, nearly all (98.7%) reported self-use of misoprostol for PPH prevention. A small fraction was diagnosed with PPH (4.4%, 82/1884) and was administered treatment. Hb outcomes, including the proportion of women with a Hb drop of 2 g/dL or greater, were similar between the study groups (misoprostol: 56.4% (22/39), placebo: 60.6% (20/33), p = 0.45). Significantly more women randomized to receive misoprostol experienced shivering (82.5% vs. placebo: 61.5%, p = 0.03). Other side effects were similar between study groups and none required treatment, including among the subset of 39 women, who received misoprostol for both of its PPH indications.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While the study did not document a clinical benefit associated with misoprostol for treatment of PPH, study findings suggest that use of misoprostol for both prevention and treatment in the same birth as well as its use by lay level providers in home births does not result in any safety concerns.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01508429 Registered on December 1, 2011.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32503556
doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-00933-8
pii: 10.1186/s12978-020-00933-8
pmc: PMC7275481
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hemoglobins
0
Placebos
0
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01508429']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
88Subventions
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPPGH5295
Pays : United States
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD000494
pubmed: 22895917
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 25;4:CD011689
pubmed: 29693726
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jul;90(1):51-5
pubmed: 15919088
Lancet. 2010 Jan 16;375(9710):210-6
pubmed: 20060161
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Feb;31(1):102-13
pubmed: 25797470
BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):120-7
pubmed: 26333044
Int J Womens Health. 2016 Jul 29;8:341-9
pubmed: 27536161
Lancet. 2010 Jan 16;375(9710):217-23
pubmed: 20060162
Glob Public Health. 2018 Aug;13(8):1081-1097
pubmed: 28357885
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 08;8(8):e70446
pubmed: 23950937
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 03;9(2):e87683
pubmed: 24498353
BJOG. 2013 Feb;120(3):277-85; discussion 86-7
pubmed: 23190345
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014 Jul 03;2(3):275-84
pubmed: 25276587
J Perinatol. 2016 May;36 Suppl 1:S55-73
pubmed: 27109093
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 13;(2):CD003249
pubmed: 24523225
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Mar;108(3):276-81
pubmed: 20053399
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Mar;144(3):290-296
pubmed: 30582753
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Sep;138(3):363-366
pubmed: 28643396
Confl Health. 2014 Dec 01;8:26
pubmed: 25904976