Search

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Several studies have reported women's worry that sexual intercourse may harm the course of pregnancy. This worry might lead to avoidance of sexual intercourse during pregnancy. Aim: To assess if fears about harming the pregnancy are associated with avoidance of sexual intercourse during pregnancy. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 250 Vietnamese pregnant women in the first or second trimester who visited our hospital for antenatal care. We explored 5 types of fears including miscarriage/preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, bleeding, infection, and injury to the fetus. Fears were measured by modified questions from the Reasons For Not Engaging in Sexual Activity During Pregnancy questionnaire. Using the total fear score, pregnant women were categorized into having low, moderate, and high fear. Main Outcome Measure: Not having sexual intercourse during the past 4 weeks. Results: 72 (28.8%) pregnant women had no sexual intercourse for the past 4 weeks. All types of fear were considered important among pregnant women; the more important fears were infection and injury to the fetus. In multivariable regression analysis, the prevalence of not having sexual intercourse was higher in both women who had moderate (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.84, 95% CI 1.42–5.67) and high fear (adjusted prevalence ratio = 4.39, 95% CI 2.28–8.44). Conclusion: Avoidance of sexual intercourse was common among Vietnamese pregnant women and was associated with the fears about harming the pregnancy. This can be a target in the health education programs for pregnancy couples.Thanh C. Phan, Long B. Hoang, Thanh K. Tran, et al. Fear-Related Reasons for Avoiding Sexual Intercourse in Early Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sex Med 2021;9:100430.

Abstract Aim We assess the cost-benefit implications of C-reactive protein (CRP) testing in reducing antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory infection in Viet Nam by comparing the incremental costs of CRP testing with the economic costs of antimicrobial resistance averted due to lower antibiotic prescribing. Findings Patients in the CRP group and the controls incurred similar costs in managing their illness, excluding the costs of the quantitative CRP tests, provided free of charge in the trial context. Assuming a unit cost of $1 per test, the incremental cost of CRP testing was $0.93 per patient. Based on a previous modelling analysis, the 20 percentage point reduction in prescribing observed in the trial implies a societal benefit of $0.82 per patient. With the low levels of adherence to the test results observed in the trial, CRP testing would not be cost-beneficial. The sensitivity analyses showed, however, that with higher adherence to test results their use would be cost-beneficial.

Abstract Background and Aim We aimed to evaluate the application of Peptest, a novel technique to detect pepsin in the saliva, and identify its threshold level for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with extraesophageal symptoms. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in two groups: patients with extraesophageal GERD symptoms (symptomatic group divided into GERD and non‐GERD groups according to 24‐h esophageal pH‐impedance monitoring [pH‐I] results) and healthy controls. For the symptomatic group, endoscopy, pH 24 h, high‐resolution manometry (HRM), and salivary Peptest were performed. For the healthy control group, only Peptest was done. The accuracy of Peptest was compared with that of pH‐I by the Lyon consensus criteria. Results Chronic laryngitis was the most frequent extraesophageal symptom. On saliva testing, the GERD group had a higher prevalence of positive samples and pepsin concentration than the control group. Between GERD and non‐GERD groups, the optimal threshold level was 31.2 ng/mL, with a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 27.5%. The optimal threshold level was 31.4 ng/mL to differentiate GERD from healthy controls, with a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 66.0%. Age, number of total refluxes, DeMeester score, post‐reflux swallow‐induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, and mean nocturnal baseline impedence (MNBI) were associated with pepsin concentration. Regarding HRM metrics, there was no significant difference of pepsin concentration between low/normal upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure, low/normal lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure, low/normal 4‐s integrated relaxation pressure (IRP4s), and hypomotility/normal motility. Conclusion Patients with extraesophageal symptoms had a higher prevalence of positive Peptest. The optimum threshold level of 31.4 ng/mL had high sensitivity and moderate specificity to differentiate between patients with GERD and healthy controls.

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections is common in primary health care, but distinguishing serious from self-limiting infections is difficult, particularly in low-resource settings. We assessed whether C-reactive protein point-of-care testing can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients with non-severe acute respiratory tract infections in Vietnam. Method: We did a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in ten primary health-care centres in northern Vietnam. Patients aged 1–65 years with at least one focal and one systemic symptom of acute respiratory tract infection were assigned 1:1 to receive either C-reactive protein point-of-care testing or routine care, following which antibiotic prescribing decisions were made. Patients with severe acute respiratory tract infection were excluded. Enrolled patients were reassessed on day 3, 4, or 5, and on day 14 a structured telephone interview was done blind to the intervention. Randomised assignments were concealed from prescribers and patients but not masked as the test result was used to assist treatment decisions. The primary outcome was antibiotic use within 14 days of follow-up. All analyses were prespecified in the protocol and the statistical analysis plan. All analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and the analysis of the primary endpoint was repeated in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered under number NCT01918579. Findings: Between March 17, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 2037 patients (1028 children and 1009 adults) were enrolled and randomised. One adult patient withdrew immediately after randomisation. 1017 patients were assigned to receive C-reactive protein point-of-care testing, and 1019 patients were assigned to receive routine care. 115 patients in the C-reactive protein point-of-care group and 72 patients in the routine care group were excluded in the intention-to-treat analysis due to missing primary endpoint. The number of patients who used antibiotics within 14 days was 581 (64%) of 902 patients in the C-reactive protein group versus 738 (78%) of 947 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·49, 95% CI 0·40–0·61; p