Search

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking in pregnancy causes substantial avoidable harm to mothers and offspring; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may prevent this, and is used to help women to quit. A recently updated Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating impacts of NRT in pregnancy focuses primarily on efficacy data, but also reports adverse impacts from NRT. Here we identify and summarize NRT impacts on adverse pregnancy outcomes reported in non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). METHODS: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs and non-RCT studies of NRT in pregnancy, with design-specific risk of bias assessment and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria applied to selected outcomes. FINDINGS: Relevant Cochrane Review findings are reported alongside those from this new review. Seven RCTs were included; n = 2340. Nine meta-analyses were performed; non-statistically significant estimates indicated potentially reduced risk from NRT compared with smoking for mean birth weight, low birth weight, preterm birth, intensive care admissions, neonatal death, congenital anomalies and caesarean section and potentially increased risks for miscarriage and stillbirth. GRADE assessment for mean birth weight and miscarriage outcomes indicated 'low' confidence in findings. Twenty-three non-RCTs were included; n = 931 163. Eleven large studies from five routine health-care cohorts reported clinical outcomes; 12 small studies investigated mainly physiological outcomes within in-patient women given NRT. Findings from meta-analyses for congenital anomalies, stillbirth and preterm birth were underpowered and not in a consistent direction; GRADE assessment of confidence in findings was 'very low'. Routine health-care studies were of higher quality, but implications of reported findings were unclear as there was inadequate measurement and reporting of women's smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from randomi

IMPORTANCE: Breast milk substitutes (BMS) are important nutritional products evaluated in clinical trials. Concerns have been raised about the risk of bias in BMS trials, the reliability of claims that arise from such trials, and the potential for BMS trials to undermine breastfeeding in trial participants. Existing clinical trial guidance does not fully address issues specific to BMS trials. OBJECTIVES: To establish new methodological criteria to guide the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of BMS trials and to support clinical trialists designing and undertaking BMS trials, editors and peer reviewers assessing trial reports for publication, and regulators evaluating the safety, nutritional adequacy, and efficacy of BMS products. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A modified Delphi method was conducted, involving 3 rounds of anonymous questionnaires and a face-to-face consensus meeting between January 1 and October 24, 2018. Participants were 23 experts in BMS trials, BMS regulation, trial methods, breastfeeding support, infant feeding research, and medical publishing, and were affiliated with institutions across Europe, North America, and Australasia. Guidance development was supported by an industry consultation, analysis of methodological issues in a sample of published BMS trials, and consultations with BMS trial participants and a research ethics committee. RESULTS: An initial 73 criteria, derived from the literature, were sent to the experts. The final consensus guidance contains 54 essential criteria and 4 recommended criteria. An 18-point checklist summarizes the criteria that are specific to BMS trials. Key themes emphasized in the guidance are research integrity and transparency of reporting, supporting breastfeeding in trial participants, accurate description of trial interventions, and use of valid and meaningful outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of this guidance should enhance the quality and validity of BMS trials, prot