Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

Dispensing of Potentially Harmful Prescription Drugs in 1.8 Million Pregnant Women in France: A Nationwide Study Based on Two Risk Classification Systems

Introduction

Nationwide prevalence of potentially harmful drug prescribing during pregnancy is unknown in France, and several risk classification systems (RCS) exist to guide prescribers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to estimate the nationwide prevalence of potentially harmful drug prescribing during pregnancy in France and to describe maternal characteristics associated with this prescription.

Methods

This drug utilisation study, conducted on the French health databases (67 million beneficiaries), included all pregnancies beginning in 2016–2017, regardless of pregnancy outcome. Potentially harmful drug prescribing was defined as at least one reimbursement during pregnancy of Swedish RCS category D drugs, Australian RCS category D/X drugs, or contraindicated drugs in France for drugs not listed in these two RCSs. Maternal characteristics associated with potentially harmful drug prescribing were described using a univariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Among the 1,844,447 pregnant women identified, the prevalence of potentially harmful drug prescribing was higher according to the Australian RCS (3.9%) than according to the Swedish RCS (2.2%), with good agreement between the two RCSs (Kappa = 0.81 [0.74–0.87]). This prevalence increased to 9.2% and 6.9%, respectively, when considering contraindications in France. Prescribing of teratogenic drugs, including retinoids and valproate, was highest during the first trimester, whereas prescribing of foetotoxic drugs decreased after the first trimester but remained high for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (N = 10,021). In women with no chronic diseases, polymedication (five or more drugs) was the strongest maternal characteristic associated with potentially harmful drug prescribing in both RCSs.

Conclusions

Potentially harmful drug prescribing during pregnancy is not uncommon in France. This study supports the comparative analysis of RCS to assess potentially harmful drug prescribing in claims databases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-021-01117-4.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are an important part of postnatal care. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a commonly-used type of medication in the management of postpartum pain, and their effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a single dose of an oral NSAID for relief of acute perineal pain in the early postpartum period.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 December 2019), OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (28 February 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a single dose of a NSAID versus a single dose of placebo, paracetamol or another NSAID for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We included papers in abstract format only if they had sufficient information to determine that they met the review's prespecified inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (FW and VS) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion. Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked it for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 studies examining 16 different NSAIDs and involving 5136 women (none were breastfeeding). Studies were published between 1967 and 2013. Risk of bias due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was generally unclearly to poorly reported, but participants and caregivers were blinded, and outcome data were generally complete. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, suspected publication bias, and imprecision for small numbers of participants. NSAID versus placebo Compared to women who receive a placebo, more women who receive a single-dose NSAID may achieve adequate pain relief at four hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.23; 10 studies, 1573 women; low-certainty evidence) and at six hours (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.17; 17 studies, 2079 women; very low-certainty evidence), although we are less certain about the effects at six hours. At four hours after administration, women who receive a NSAID are probably less likely to need additional analgesia compared to women who receive placebo (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.58; 4 studies, 486 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be less likely to need additional analgesia at six hours after initial administration, although the evidence was less certain at six hours (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.40; 10 studies, 1012 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no adverse events were observed at four hours post-administration (90 women). There may be little or no difference in maternal adverse effects between NSAIDs and placebo at six hours post-administration (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.70; 13 studies, 1388 women; low-certainty evidence). Fourteen maternal adverse effects were reported in the NSAID group (drowsiness (5), abdominal discomfort (2), weakness (1), dizziness (2), headache (2), moderate epigastralgia (1), not specified (1)) and eight in the placebo group (drowsiness (2), light-headedness (1), nausea (1), backache (1), dizziness (1), epigastric pain (1), not specified (1)), although not all studies assessed adverse effects. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the studies. NSAID versus paracetamol NSAIDs may lead to more women achieving adequate pain relief at four hours, compared with paracetamol (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.22; 3 studies, 342 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in adequate pain relief between NSAIDs and paracetamol at six hours post-administration (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.47; 2 studies, 99 women; very low-certainty evidence) or in the need for additional analgesia at four hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13; 1 study, 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the risk of requiring additional analgesia at six hours compared with paracetamol (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; 1 study, 59 women; low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no maternal adverse effects were observed at four hours post-administration (210 women). Six hours post-administration, we are uncertain if there is any difference between groups in the number of maternal adverse effects (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.08; 3 studies, 300 women; very low-certainty evidence), with one case of pruritis in the NSAID group and one case of sleepiness in the paracetamol group. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Comparisons of different NSAIDs or doses did not demonstrate any differences in effectiveness for any primary outcome measures; however, few data were available on some NSAIDs. None of the included studies reported on any of this review's secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women who are not breastfeeding and who sustained perineal trauma, NSAIDs (compared to placebo or paracetamol) may provide greater pain relief for acute postpartum perineal pain and fewer women need additional analgesia, but uncertainty remains, as the evidence is rated as low- or very low-certainty. The risk of bias was unclear for many studies, adverse effects were often not assessed and breastfeeding women were not included. While this review provides some indication of the likely effect, there is uncertainty in our conclusions. The main reasons for downgrading were the inclusion of studies at high risk of bias and inconsistency in the findings of individual studies. Future studies could examine NSAIDs' adverse effects, including neonatal effects and the compatibility of NSAIDs with breastfeeding, and could assess other secondary outcomes. Future research could consider women with and without perineal trauma, including perineal tears. High-quality studies could be conducted to further assess the efficacy of NSAIDs versus paracetamol and the efficacy of multimodal treatments.

Relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth

BACKGROUND

Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.

Local cooling for relieving pain from perineal trauma sustained during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain. We undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments. Cooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment There was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) -4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of -0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance. Cooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression) There was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of -0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack) One study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad) The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women's self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.

Postpartum Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension affects approximately 10% of pregnancies and may persist in the postpartum period. Furthermore, de novo hypertension may present after delivery, but its exact prevalence is not verified. Both types of hypertension expose the mother to eventually severe complications like eclampsia, stroke, pulmonary edema, and HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet) syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until today, there are limited data regarding the risk factors, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology of postpartum hypertensive disorders. However, there is certain evidence that preeclampsia may in large part be responsible. Women who experienced preeclampsia during pregnancy, although considered cured after delivery and elimination of the placenta, continue to present endothelial and renal dysfunction in the postpartum period. The brain and kidneys are particularly sensitive to this pathological vascular condition, and severe complications may result from their involvement. Large randomized trials are needed to give us the evidence that will allow a timely diagnosis and treatment. Until then, medical providers should increase their knowledge regarding hypertension after delivery because many times there is an underestimation of the complications that can ensue after a misdiagnosed or undertreated postpartum hypertension.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma, due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy), or in association with operative vaginal birth, is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain, and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of the review, last published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (4 October 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 October 2019) and screened reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol or acetaminophen, for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, 16 of which randomised 1132 women to aspirin or placebo; one RCT did not report numbers of women. Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear, due to poor reporting. We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Aspirin versus placebo Aspirin may result in more women reporting adequate pain relief four to eight hours after administration compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether aspirin compared with placebo has an effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-certainty evidence), four to eight hours after administration. Analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences. 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 600 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four to eight hours after administration, 600 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), the need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women). 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. No RCTs reported on secondary review outcomes of: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; or maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose aspirin may increase adequate pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy compared with placebo. It is uncertain whether aspirin has an effect on the need for additional analgesia, or on maternal adverse effects, compared with placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Included RCTs excluded breastfeeding women, so there was no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure low risk of bias, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain; future RCTs could be extended to include women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Oral tramadol versus oral celecoxib for analgesia after mediolateral episiotomy repair in obese primigravidae: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

A variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been investigated, with the goal of relieving pain after post-episiotomy repair. We aimed to compare the efficacy of tramadol versus celecoxib orally in reducing pain after mediolateral episiotomy repair in obese primigravidae undergoing spontaneous vaginal delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized double-blinded trial in Cairo University hospital, Cairo, Egypt, from October 2018 to December 2019. We randomly assigned 200 women into two groups: group A (n = 100) received one tramadol tablet 100 mg orally whereas group B (n = 100) received one celecoxib tablet 200 mg orally. Our primary outcome was pain score using a 10-cm visual analog scale at different time intervals. Our secondary outcomes were the overall satisfaction score and drug side effects.

RESULTS

After mediolateral episiotomy repair, the pain scores at 1, 2, and 4 h were significantly lower in the tramadol group than in the celecoxib group (p < 0.001). However, there were no significantly differences in pain scores at 8 and 12 h between the two groups (p = 0.50 and 0.48 respectively). Women's satisfaction score was significantly higher in the tramadol group than in the celecoxib group (p < 0.001). Fewer participants in the tramadol group needed additional analgesics than in the celecoxib group; however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.17). Drug adverse effects were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Primigravid women who received tramadol 100 mg orally after mediolateral episiotomy repair had lower pain scores and were more satisfied than women who received celecoxib 200 mg orally. Both drugs were well tolerated, with few side effects.

Guizhi Fuling Capsule Exhibits Antidysmenorrhea Activity by Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase Activity

Guizhi Fuling capsule (GZFLc) is a modern preparation from traditional Chinese Medicine. Guizhi Fuling was first prescribed by Zhang Zhongjing almost two thousand years ago for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. It has also been used to treat uterine fibroids, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and endometriosis. Although effective against dysmenorrhea clinically, there are limited information on the mechanism of its action. The major components responsible for the activity are not well defined. The aim of this study has been to elucidate a mechanism that may facilitate the development of a bioactivity-based assay for quality control during drug formulation and manufacturing. Using an oxytocin-induced mouse dysmenorrhea model, we showed that oral administration of GZFLc at 150 and 300 mg/kg, dosages relevant to clinic usages, significantly suppressed oxytocin-induced writhing response. The antidysmenorrhea effect was also demonstrated by a rotarod assay. We showed that GZFLc treatment significantly prolonged the hanging time of mice on the rotating rod. Histological studies showed that GZFLc treatment reduced lamina propria edema, while no effect on COX2 expression was detected. GZFLc instead exhibited direct inhibitory effect against COX2, a critical enzyme that catalyzes arachidonic acid conversion to prostaglandins. By HPLC profiling, we showed that paeoniflorin, paeonol, and cinnamaldehyde are the major components from the corresponding plants. At 5 and 10 mg/kg, both paeoniflorin and paeonol were active against induced dysmenorrhea. The study not only links GZFLc antidysmenorrhea activity to COX2 inhibition but also uncovers a mechanism of action by which an assay can be developed for bioefficacy evaluation of GZFLc.

The comparison of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for blood pressure in preeclampsia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Introduction: The comparison of ibuprofen with acetaminophen for blood pressure (BP) in preeclampsia remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the impact of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen on BP for preeclampsia.Methods: We search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through October 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen on BP for preeclampsia. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.Results: Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall in preeclampsia patients, ibuprofen and acetaminophen show similar systolic BP (SBP) (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.26-0.34; p= .81), diastolic BP (DBP) (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI = -0.18-0.48; p  = 0.38), mean BP (MAP) (SMD = 0.02; 95% CI = -0.29-0.33; p = .91), severe range BP (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI = -0.40-0.19; p = .50), severe hypertension (SMD = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.85-1.62; p = .32), and satisfaction level (SMD = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.95-1.53; p = .13).Conclusions: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen may have no significant influence on BP for preeclampsia.

The effect of acupressure applied to points LV4 and LI4 on perceived acute postpartum perineal pain after vaginal birth with episiotomy: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Acupressure can be used for alleviating perineal pain sustained after a vaginal birth with episiotomy. To evaluate if a 10-min acupressure application relieved perineal pain after vaginal birth with episiotomy and if the analgesic effect was maintained for up to 120 min.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from January to May 2019 with 120 women. The participants were over 18 years old, had an episiotomy and experienced perineal pain ≥ 4, had not received anti-inflammatory medication or analgesics after childbirth, and were randomized to receive acupressure or ice-pack application on the perineum for 10 min or standard care.

RESULTS

Immediately post-intervention, the women in the experimental groups had a significantly higher decrease in perineal pain. Within 120 min, there was a significant difference in the pain levels between the three groups. Each method (acupressure, ice package and control group) is evaluated for 30 min (VAS 3), 60 min (VAS 4) and 120 min (VAS 5). Comparing these 3 methods the acupressure has significantly reduced pain after the application (VAS 3 3.20 ± 1.28 vs. 3.77 ± 1.27 vs. 4.82 ± 0.93, respectively, VAS 4 2.65 ± 1.33 vs. 3.5 ± 1.37 vs. 4.62 ± 0.97, respectively, VAS 5 2.02 ± 1.44 vs. 3.5 ± 1.37 vs. 4.57 ± 0.93, respectively, p < 0.05) CONCLUSION: Effective pain relief is achieved by applying acupressure for 10 min to the perineum and is maintained between 30, 60, and 120 min.

Antenatal maternal education for improving postnatal perineal healing for women who have birthed in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

The female perineum becomes suffused and stretched during pregnancy, and further strain during vaginal childbirth contributes to approximately 85% of women experiencing some degree of trauma to the perineal region. Multiple factors play a role in the type and severity of trauma experienced, including parity, delivery method, and local practices. There is ongoing debate about best midwifery practice to reduce perineal trauma. Once perineal trauma has occurred, treatment also varies greatly, depending on its degree and severity, local practice and customs, and personal preference. In order to optimise wound-healing outcomes, it is important that wounds are assessed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. A perineal wound may cause significant physical and/or psychological impact in the short or long term, however little evidence is available on this subject.Antenatal education serves to prepare women and their partners for pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period. The delivery of this education varies widely in type, content, and nature. This review examined antenatal education which is specifically tailored towards perineal care and wound healing in the postnatal period via formal channels. Appropriate patient education positively impacts on wound-healing rates and compliance with wound care. Risk factors that contribute to the breakdown of wounds and poor healing rates may be addressed antenatally in order to optimise postnatal wound healing. It is important to assess whether or not antenatal wound-care education positively affects perineal healing, in order to empower women to incorporate best practice, evidence-based treatment with this important aspect of self-care in the immediate postnatal period.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who have experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (8th September 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8th September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which referred to all formal methods of antenatal education and addressed care of a potential perineal wound as a result of a tear or episiotomy, which was experienced by pregnant women who planned to give birth within a hospital setting.Trials using a cluster-RCT and a quasi-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies published in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion in this review, but none were identified.We planned to consider all formal methods of antenatal education which addressed care of a perineal wound. We also planned to consider all contact points where there was an opportunity for formal education, including midwifery appointments, antenatal education classes, obstetrician appointments, general practitioner appointments and physiotherapist appointments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. We excluded one study and one other study is ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We set out to evaluate the RCT evidence pertaining to the impact of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both. However, no studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a lack of evidence concerning whether or not antenatal education relating to perineal wound healing in this cohort of women will change the outcome for these women in relation to wound healing, infection rate, re-attendance or re-admission to hospital, pain, health-related quality of life, maternal bonding, and negative emotional experiences. Further study is warranted in this area given the significant physical, psychological and economic impact of perineal wounds, and the large proportion of childbearing women who have experienced a postnatal wound. The benefits of any future research in this field would be maximised by incorporating women in a range of socio-economic groups, and with a range of healthcare options. This research could take both a qualitative and a quantitative approach and examine the outcomes identified in this review in order to assess fully the potential benefits of a tailored antenatal package, and to make recommendations for future practice. There is currently no evidence to inform practice in this regard.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol/acetaminophen for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, with 16 involving 1132 women randomised to aspirin or placebo (one RCT did not report numbers of women). Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to review meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear due to poor reporting.We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (data from 15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Primary outcomes Aspirin versus placeboMore women who received aspirin experienced adequate pain relief compared with women who received placebo over four to eight hours after administration (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received aspirin were less likely to need additional pain relief over four to eight hours after administration (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in maternal adverse effects over four to eight hours post-administration (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences.There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 600 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.There was no clear difference over four to eight hours after administration between 600 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women).There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. Secondary outcomesNo studies reported on secondary review outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence to suggest that single dose aspirin compared with placebo can increase pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that aspirin can reduce the need for additional analgesia, without increasing maternal adverse effects. Evidence was downgraded based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias or both. RCTs excluded breastfeeding women so there is no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding.With international guidance recommending mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, and exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, the evidence from this review is not applicable to current recommended best practice. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Although formal assessment was beyond the remit of this review, current guidance suggests that other analgesic drugs (including paracetamol) should be considered first for postpartum perineal pain. Such agents are the focus of other reviews in this series on drugs for perineal pain in the early postpartum period. It is considered most likely that if RCTs are conducted in the future they could compare aspirin with other pain relievers. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure high methodological quality, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain, future RCTs could be extended to women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are thus an important part of postnatal care. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a commonly used type of medication in the management of postpartum pain and their effectiveness and safety should be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a single dose of an oral NSAID for relief of acute perineal pain in the early postpartum period.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2016), OpenSIGLE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, the ISRCTN Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov (31 March 2016). We also reviewed reference lists of retrieved papers and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a single dose of a NSAID versus a single dose of placebo, paracetamol or another NSAID for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (FW and VS) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, was also conducted independently by two review authors and checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies that examined 13 different NSAIDs and involved 4181 women (none of whom were breastfeeding). Studies were published between 1967 and 2013, with the majority published in the 1980s. Of the 4181 women involved in the studies, 2642 received a NSAID and 1539 received placebo or paracetamol. Risk of bias was generally unclear due to poor reporting, but in most studies the participants and personnel were blinded, outcome data were complete and the outcomes that were specified in the methods section were reported.None of the included studies reported on any of this review's secondary outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation or re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; breastfeeding (fully or mixed) at discharge; breastfeeding (fully or mixed) at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; postpartum depression; instrumental measures of disability due to perineal pain. NSAID versus placeboCompared to women who received a placebo, more women who received a single dose NSAID achieved adequate pain relief at four hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.23, 10 studies, 1573 participants (low-quality evidence)) and adequate pain relief at six hours (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.17, 17 studies, 2079 participants (very low-quality evidence)). Women who received a NSAID were also less likely to need additional analgesia compared to women who received placebo at four hours (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.58, four studies, 486 participants (low-quality evidence)) and at six hours after initial administration (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.40, 10 studies, 1012 participants (low-quality evidence)). Fourteen maternal adverse effects were reported in the NSAID group (drowsiness (5), abdominal discomfort (2), weakness (1), dizziness (2), headache (2), moderate epigastralgia (1), not specified (1)) and eight in the placebo group (drowsiness (2), light headed (1), nausea (1), backache (1), dizziness (1), epigastric pain (1), not specified (1)), although not all studies assessed adverse effects. There was no difference in overall maternal adverse effects between NSAIDs and placebo at six hours post-administration (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.70, 13 studies, 1388 participants (very low-quality evidence)). One small study (with two treatment arms) assessed maternal adverse effects at four hours post-administration, but there were no maternal adverse effects observed (one study, 90 participants (low-quality evidence)). Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. NSAID versus paracetamolNSAIDs versus paracetamol were also more effective for adequate pain relief at four hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.22, three studies, 342 participants) but not at six hours post-administration. There was no difference in the need for additional analgesia between the two groups at four hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, one study, 73 participants), but women in the NSAID group were less likely to need any additional analgesia at six hours (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, one study, 59 participants). No maternal adverse effects were reported four hours after drug administration (one study). Six hours post-administration, there was no difference between the groups in the number of maternal adverse effects (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.08, three studies, 300 participants), with one case of pruritis in the NSAID group and one case of sleepiness in the paracetamol group. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies.Comparisons of different NSAIDs and different doses of the same NSAID did not demonstrate any differences in their effectiveness on any of the primary outcome measures; however, few data were available on some NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women who are not breastfeeding and who sustained perineal trauma, NSAIDs (compared to placebo) provide greater pain relief for acute postpartum perineal pain and fewer women need additional analgesia when treated with a NSAID. However, the risk of bias was unclear for many of the included studies, adverse effects were often not assessed and breastfeeding women were not included in the studies. The overall quality of the evidence (GRADE) was low with the evidence for all outcomes rated as low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading were inclusion of studies with high risk of bias and inconsistency of findings of individual studies.NSAIDs also appear to be more effective in providing relief for perineal pain than paracetamol, but few studies were included in this analysis.Future studies should examine NSAIDs' adverse effects profile including neonatal adverse effects and the compatibility of NSAIDs with breastfeeding, and assess other important secondary outcomes of this review. Moreover, studies mostly included women who had episiotomies. Future research should consider women with and without perineal trauma, including perineal tears. High-quality studies should be conducted to further assess the efficacy of NSAIDs versus paracetamol and the efficacy of multimodal treatments.