Search

BACKGROUND The World Health Organization has set a goal to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of syphilis to a target of

Aim To compare the efficacies and side effects of intravenous and oral dexamethasone (IV-D and PO-D) for paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reaction (P-HSR) prophylaxis in patients with primary ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinomas (POC/PFTC/PPC) receiving a first cycle of paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC). Methods In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with POC/PFTC/PPC receiving a first cycle of TC were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the IV-D or PO-D groups. Those were followed at 28 days. Primary outcomes were incidence of overall and severe P-HSRs. Secondary outcomes included incidence of dexamethasone-related side effects, other chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs), and quality-of-life (QoL). Results A total of 288 patients were enrolled from February to July 2015, of whom 281 were eligible for analysis, including 140 allocated to IV-D and 141 to PO-D. There was no significant difference in P-HSR rate between the IV-D and PO-D groups (17.9% vs. 19.1%, P = 0.780). Severe P-HSR occurred in one women in the IV-D group (0.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.498). There were no significant differences in other chemotherapy-related AEs and QoL scores. However, women in the PO-D had more side effects from short-term corticosteroid use than those in the IV-D group, especially acne (10.6% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.004). Conclusions IV-D and PO-D have similar efficacies for preventing P-HSR. However, short-term IV-D may be associated with fewer side effects than PO-D. IV-D is thus suggested for P-HSR prophylaxis in patients with POC/PFTC/PPC receiving a first cycle of TC.

Background Twin pregnancies are associated with a high risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity due to an increased rate of preterm birth. Betamimetics can decrease contraction frequency or delay preterm birth in singleton pregnancies by 24 to 48 hours. The efficacy of oral betamimetics in women with a twin pregnancy is unproven. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic oral betamimetics for the prevention of preterm labour and birth for women with twin pregnancies. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (21 September 2015), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (January 1985 to 31 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials in twin pregnancies comparing oral betamimetics with placebo or any intervention with the specific aim of preventing preterm birth. Quasi-randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results Overall, the quality of evidence is low for the primary outcomes. All of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events. Preterm birth, the most important primary outcome, had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. Six trials (374 twin pregnancies) were included, but only five trials (344 twin pregnancies) contributed data. All trials compared oral betamimetics with placebo. Betamimetics reduced the incidence of preterm labour (two trials, 194 twin pregnancies, risk ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.78; low quality evidence). However, betamimetics did not reduce prelabour rupture of membranes (one trial, 144 twin pregnancies, RR 1.42; 95% CI 0.42 to 4.82; low quality evidence), preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (four trials, 276 twin pregnancies, RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10; low quality evidence), or less than 34 weeks' gestation (one trial, 144 twin pregnancies, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.50; low quality evidence). Mean neonatal birthweight in the betamimetic group was significantly higher than in the placebo group (three trials, 478 neonates, mean difference 111.22 g; 95% CI 22.21 to 200.24). Nevertheless, there was no evidence of an effect of betamimetics in reduction of low birthweight (two trials, 366 neonates, average RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.85, random-effects), or small-for-gestational age neonates (two trials, 178 neonates, average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.99, random-effects). Two trials showed that betamimetics significantly reduced the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (388 neonates, RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.77), but the difference was not significant when the analysis was adjusted to account for the non-independence of twins (194 twins, RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.16). Three trials showed no evidence of an effect of betamimetics in reducing neonatal mortality, either with the unadjusted analysis, assuming twins are completely independent of each other (452 neonates, average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.15 to 5.37, random-effects), or in the adjusted analysis, assuming non-independence of twins (226 twins, average RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.38, random-effects). A maternal death was reported in one trial without a significant difference between the groups (144 women, RR 2.84; 95% CI 0.12 to 68.57). Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic oral betamimetics for preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of ceftriaxone versus cefazolin for the prevention of febrile morbidity and postoperative infections among patients after abdominal hysterectomy. Methods In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in Bangkok, Thailand, 320 patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy between July 2008 and July 2009 were randomly assigned to receive 1 g of either ceftriaxone or cefazolin intravenously in a single dose before surgery. The participants were evaluated for postoperative fever and infection for up to 4 weeks. χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used for statistical analysis. Results There was no significant difference between the ceftriaxone and cefazolin groups in incidence of febrile morbidity (9.4% versus 11.2%), wound infection (3.8% versus 1.9%), vaginal cuff infection (3.8% versus 1.9%), or urinary tract infection (1.9% versus 1.9%). Conclusion There was no difference between the use of single-dose preoperative ceftriaxone and cefazolin in preventing infectious morbidity among patients undergoing hysterectomy.