BACKGROUND: Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. This is an update of a review last published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and other maternal and infant outcomes.To compare the effects of variations in the packages of active and expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary PPH and other maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 22 January 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, carried out data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, involving analysis of data from 8892 women. The studies were all undertaken in hospitals, seven in higher-income countries and one in a lower-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and four compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used a random-effects model in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. Of the eight studies included, we considered three studies as having low risk of bias in the main aspects of sequence generation, allocation concealment and completeness of data collection. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.The evidence suggested that, for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, it is uncertain whether active management reduces the average risk of maternal severe primary PPH (more than 1000 mL) at time of birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, 3 studies, 4636 women, I2 = 60%; GRADE: very low quality). For incidence of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth, active management of the third stage may reduce the number of women with anaemia after birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 2 studies, 1572 women; GRADE: low quality). We also found that active management of the third stage may make little or no difference to the number of babies admitted to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 2 studies, 3207 infants; GRADE: low quality). It is uncertain whether active management of the third stage reduces the number of babies with jaundice requiring treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 2 studies, 3142 infants, I2 = 66%; GRADE: very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe PPH at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management reduces mean maternal blood loss at birth and probably reduces the rate of primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and the use of therapeutic uterotonics. Active management also probably reduces the mean birthweight of the baby, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion. In addition, it may reduce the need for maternal blood transfusion. However, active management may increase maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, afterpains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward, and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified).In the comparison of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except it was uncertain whether there was a difference identified between groups for severe primary PPH (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.17; 2 studies, 2941 women, I2 = 71%), maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL at 24 to 72 hours (average RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 study, 193 women) or the need for neonatal admission (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 1 study, 1512 women). In this group, active management may make little difference to the rate of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (average RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.18; 1 study, 1447 women).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, for example, omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the data appeared to show that active management reduced the risk of severe primary PPH greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth, we are uncertain of this finding because of the very low-quality evidence. Active management may reduce the incidence of maternal anaemia (Hb less than 9 g/dL) following birth, but harms such as postnatal hypertension, pain and return to hospital due to bleeding were identified.In women at low risk of excessive bleeding, it is uncertain whether there was a difference between active and expectant management for severe PPH or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours). Women could be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.It must be emphasised that this review includes only a small number of studies with relatively small numbers of participants, and the quality of evidence for primary outcomes is low or very low.

/pdf/active-versus-expectant-management-for-women-in-the-third-3zd4kutlcu.pdf

Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour

Gonorrhoea is a major public health concern globally. Of particularly grave concern is that resistance to the extended-spectrum cephalosporins has emerged during the most recent years. This guideline provides recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of gonorrhoea in Europe. Compared to the outdated 2009 European gonorrhoea guideline, this 2012 European gonorrhoea guideline provides up-to-date guidance on, broader indications for testing and treatment of gonorrhoea;the introduction of dual antimicrobial therapy (ceftriaxone 500 mg and azithromycin 2 g) for uncomplicated gonorrhoea when the antimicrobial sensitivity is unknown; recommendation of test of cure in all gonorrhoea cases to ensure eradication of infection and identify emerging resistance; and recommendations to identify, verify and report failures with recommended treatment regimens. Optimisations of the testing, diagnostics, antimicrobial treatment and follow-up of gonorrhoea patients are crucial in controlling the emergent spread of cephalosporin-resistant and multidrug-resistant gonorrhoea.

2012 European guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of gonorrhoea in adults

Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices.

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a large prospective cohort study designed to promote the use of long-acting, reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods to reduce unintended pregnancy in the St. Louis region. Participants were educated about reversible contraception, with an emphasis on the benefits of LARC methods, were provided with their choice of reversible contraception at no cost, and were followed for 2 to 3 years. We analyzed pregnancy, birth, and induced-abortion rates among teenage girls and women 15 to 19 years of age in this cohort and compared them with those observed nationally among U.S. teens in the same age group. RESULTS Of the 1404 teenage girls and women enrolled in CHOICE, 72% chose an intrauterine device or implant (LARC methods); the remaining 28% chose another method. During the 2008–2013 period, the mean annual rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among CHOICE participants were 34.0, 19.4, and 9.7 per 1000 teens, respectively. In comparison, rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among sexually experienced U.S. teens in 2008 were 158.5, 94.0, and 41.5 per 1000, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Teenage girls and women who were provided contraception at no cost and educated about reversible contraception and the benefits of LARC methods had rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion that were much lower than the national rates for sexually experienced teens. (Funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and others.)

/pdf/provision-of-no-cost-long-acting-contraception-and-teenage-46k93ufr52.pdf

Provision of No-Cost, Long-Acting Contraception and Teenage Pregnancy

In recent years, enthusiasm about long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods has skyrocketed among U.S. reproductive health care providers because of these methods’ potential to budge the rate of unintended pregnancy, which “stubbornly” persists at the same level despite efforts over many years to reduce it.1 For too long, LARC methods—IUDs and implants—have not been an option that women could easily choose, because of a range of barriers: lack of knowledge,2 providers’ low familiarity and lack of training,3–5 cost6,7 and unavailability in clinics.8 While we strongly believe that these barriers should be reduced so that LARC methods are an integral part of a comprehensive method mix, we also are concerned that unchecked enthusiasm for them can lead to the adoption of programs that, paradoxically, undermine women’s reproductive autonomy. Our concern is that when efforts move beyond ensuring access for all women to promoting use among “high-risk” populations through programs and contraceptive counseling aimed at increasing uptake of LARC methods, the effect is that the most vulnerable women may have their options restricted. To avoid this pitfall, it is vital that programs designed to promote LARC methods put the priorities, needs and preferences of individual women—not the promotion of specific technologies—first.

While the possibility that LARC promotion efforts can undermine reproductive autonomy may seem remote in the face of the myriad barriers women face in using these methods, we believe that now is a pivotal time to engage in a critical discussion of this topic, given that use of LARC methods is on the rise,9 new clinical models are showing success in reducing and eliminating barriers to using them10,11 and many women have newfound access to contraceptives thanks to provisions of the Affordable Care Act.12 Such a discussion may illuminate the ways in which narrowing the scope of possibilities for family planning program innovation to promoting a particular class of technologies allows the widespread social inequalities that underlie unintended pregnancy to become invisible. It also may show how prioritizing method effectiveness above other contraceptive features may deny some women reproductive control.

/pdf/women-or-larc-first-reproductive-autonomy-and-the-promotion-2oye32ggxv.pdf

Women or LARC first? Reproductive autonomy and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the subdermal implant. These methods are the most effective reversible methods of contraception, and have the additional advantages of being long-lasting, convenient, well liked by users and cost effective. Compared with other user-dependent methods that increase the risk of noncompliance-related method failure, LARC methods can bring ‘typical use’ failure rates more in line with ‘perfect use’ failure rates. LARC methods are ‘forgettable’; they are not dependent on compliance with a pill-taking regimen, remembering to change a patch or ring, or coming back to the clinician for an injection. LARC method failure rates rival that of tubal sterilization at <1% for IUDs and the subdermal implant. For these reasons, we believe that IUDs and implants should be offered as first-line contraception for most women. This article provides a review of the LARC methods that are currently available in the US, including their effectiveness, advantages, disadvantages and contraindications. Additionally, we dispel myths and misconceptions regarding IUDs, and address the barriers to LARC use.

/pdf/efficacy-and-safety-of-long-acting-reversible-contraception-50t55dic5p.pdf

Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception.

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 women in the St Louis area. The project provided no-cost reversible contraception to participants for 2 to 3 years with the goal of increasing uptake of long-acting reversible contraception and decreasing unintended pregnancy in the area. This manuscript will provide a brief summation of the major findings to date including the dramatic effect the project had on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates.

Colleen McNicholas

Papers

Provision of No-Cost, Long-Acting Contraception and Teenage Pregnancy

Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception.

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project Round Up: what we did and what we learned

Cost as a Barrier to Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) Use in Adolescents

Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion.