Dataset Information

CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued. METHODS:CONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37-42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/- previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience. DISCUSSION:The high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015-002942-30.

SUBMITTER: Boie S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6720847 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Boie Sidsel S Glavind Julie J Uldbjerg Niels N Bakker Jannet J H JJH van der Post Joris A M JAM Steer Philip J PJ Bor Pinar P

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20190902 1

<h4>Background</h4>Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours w ...[more]

PMID: 31477047

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN:Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING:11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS:Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION:This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN 12615000177550.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether an ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (PNB) could decrease anaesthetic use, thereby shortening the length of the second stage of labour in women undergoing epidural analgesia.DesignProspective, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.SettingAn obstetric centre in a general hospital in China.Participants72 nulliparous women were randomised, and 71 women completed the study.InterventionAn ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB was administered to all study participants; the PNB group were given 0.25% ropivacaine 10 mL, while the control group were given 10 mL saline.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was the duration of the second stage of labour. Secondary outcomes included additional bolus administration, total hourly bupivacaine consumption, difference in thickness between the contracted and relaxed rectus abdominis muscle before (DRAM1) and 30 min after (DRAM2) PNB, urge to defecate, maternal cooperation, preservation of the lower limb motor function, tightness of the perineum, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for pain.ResultsThe duration of the second stage of labour was shorter in the PNB group than in the control group (difference of 33.8 min (95% CI 15.6 to 52.0), p<0.001). Additional bolus administration and total hourly bupivacaine consumption were lower in the PNB group than in the control group (p<0.001). DRAM2 was greater (p<0.001), rate of parturient women with the urge to defecate was higher (p=0.014), maternal cooperation was superior (p=0.002), and lower limb motor function preservation was greater (p=0.004) in the PNB group relative to the control group. Tightness of the perineum was eliminated from the results due to the inconsistent application of the criteria by the nursing staff. There was no significant difference in NRS scores between the groups.ConclusionsNulliparous women with epidural analgesia who received an ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB may reduce their need for bupivacaine and consequently shorten the length of the second stage of labour, therein indicating that a bilateral PNB may serve as an additional effective adjunct method of labour analgesia.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IOR-16009121.

Project description:BackgroundNonclinical studies indicate that the hormone relaxin is a good candidate for a safe cervical ripening agent that does not cause uterine contractions.MethodsThis Phase II study (conducted November 2, 2005-October 20, 2006) was a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial testing 24-h intravenous infusion of serelaxin (recombinant human relaxin) or placebo for cervical ripening in 72 healthy, primiparous women. Eligible subjects had a singleton pregnancy ≥40 weeks, were planned for elective induction, had vertex presentation of the fetus, intact membranes and a Bishop score at screening ≤4. In Part A of the study, safety evaluation of three escalating doses of serelaxin (7.5, 25 or 75 μg/kg/day) or placebo was performed in 22 subjects admitted to the hospital 24 h prior to scheduled induction (n = 7, 4, 4, and 7 subjects, respectively). The highest safe dose from Part A and placebo were then tested in Part B for safety and cervical ripening (n = 25 subjects/arm). Planned randomisation ratio was of 4:2 (serelaxin:placebo) for each dose group in Part A and 1:1 for Part B. For analysis, subjects in Part B were pooled with those receiving the same dose in Part A and all subjects receiving placebo were pooled. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Bishop score at 6, 12 and 24 h or end of study drug administration. Maternal safety evaluations included adverse events and vital signs through 4 weeks. Fetal assessments included serial heart rate monitoring and nonstress testing. Neonatal assessments included Apgar scores, NICU admissions, and adverse events through 4 weeks.ResultsOverall, 74 subjects were randomized and 72 were treated. There were no significant differences between the groups receiving the highest safe dose of serelaxin (75 μg/kg/day) and placebo in the primary or secondary efficacy endpoints. Changes from baseline in Bishop score at 24 h were 4.19 ± 1.9 and 3.26 ± 2.26 in the pooled placebo and serelaxin groups, respectively (p = 0.2507). Serelaxin was well tolerated and no anti-serelaxin antibodies were detected in either subjects or neonates.ConclusionSerelaxin infusion at the end of pregnancy was well tolerated but did not advance cervical ripening.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00259103 (15 November 2005).

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Induction of labour (IOL) is a common practice. In Australia, up to 40% of women undergoing labour induction will ultimately have a caesarean section. As a biological role for melatonin in the onset and progress of labour has been demonstrated, we aim to test the hypothesis that addition of melatonin will reduce the need for caesarean section. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing IOL at term. We plan to randomise 722 women (1:1 ratio) to receive either melatonin (four doses of 10?mg melatonin: first dose-in the evening at the time of cervical balloon or Dinoprostone PGE2 vaginal pessary insertion, second dose-at time of oxytocin infusion commencement, third dose-6?hours after the second dose, fourth dose-6?hours after the third dose) or placebo (same dosing regime). Participants who are having artificial rupture of the membranes only as the primary means of labour induction will receive up to three doses of the trial intervention. The primary outcome measure will be the requirement for a caesarean section. Secondary outcomes will include duration of each stage of labour and time from induction to birth, total dose of oxytocin administration, epidural rate, indication for caesarean section, rate of instrumental deliveries, birth within 24?hours of induction commencement, estimated blood loss, Apgar score at 5?min, neonatal intensive care unit admissions and participant satisfaction. Maternal melatonin levels will be measured immediately before commencement of the oxytocin intravenous infusion and 3?hours after and at the time of birth in order to determine any differences between the two trial arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study is conducted in accordance with the conditions of Monash Health HREC (RES-17-0000-168A). Findings from the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROTOCOL VERSION:V.7.0, 30 July 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616000311459, Universal trial number: (UTN) U1111-1195-3515.

Dataset Information

CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Publications

CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets