Dataset Information

A combination of mupirocin and acidic fibroblast growth factor for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Nipple fissure and nipple pain are common complaints among breastfeeding mothers. Studies found that mupirocin was effective in preventing and treating infections of damaged nipple and nipple pain. Acidic fibroblast growth factor (aFGF) plays an important role in wound healing. However, current evidence on the efficacy and safety of mupirocin plus aFGF for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women is inconclusive due to the lack of well-designed randomised controlled trials on this topic. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that mupirocin plus aFGF is more effective than mupirocin alone for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study is a randomised, double-blind, single-centre, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 120 breastfeeding women with nipple fissure and nipple pain will be randomly assigned to either mupirocin plus aFGF group or mupirocin plus placebo group according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence. The treatment period lasts 14 days. The primary outcome is nipple pain intensity measured by the Visual Analogue Scale on day 14 during the treatment period. Secondary outcome measures include time to complete nipple pain relief, changes in the Nipple Trauma Score, time to complete healing of nipple trauma, quality of life measured by the Maternal Postpartum Quality of Life (MAPP-QOL) Questionnaire, the frequency of breast feeding, the rate of breastfeeding discontinuation, weight change in infants and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has gained approval from the Ethics Review Committee of Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynaecology Obstetrics on 22 January 2018 (approval no. 2018KY001). We plan to publish our research findings in a peer-reviewed academic journal and disseminate these findings in international conferences. This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ChiCTR1800017248.

SUBMITTER: Lv X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6475339 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A combination of mupirocin and acidic fibroblast growth factor for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

Lv Xiaofang X Feng Rui R Zhai Jingbo J

BMJ open 20190327 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Nipple fissure and nipple pain are common complaints among breastfeeding mothers. Studies found that mupirocin was effective in preventing and treating infections of damaged nipple and nipple pain. Acidic fibroblast growth factor (aFGF) plays an important role in wound healing. However, current evidence on the efficacy and safety of mupirocin plus aFGF for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women is inconclusive due to the lack of well-designed randomised contro ...[more]

PMID: 30918032

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPainful conditions such as residual limb pain (RLP) and phantom limb pain (PLP) can manifest after amputation. The mechanisms underlying such postamputation pains are diverse and should be addressed accordingly. Different surgical treatment methods have shown potential for alleviating RLP due to neuroma formation - commonly known as neuroma pain - and to a lesser degree PLP. Two reconstructive surgical interventions, namely targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI), are gaining popularity in postamputation pain treatment with promising results. However, these two methods have not been directly compared in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Here, we present a study protocol for an international, double-blind, RCT to assess the effectiveness of TMR, RPNI, and a non-reconstructive procedure called neuroma transposition (active control) in alleviating RLP, neuroma pain, and PLP.MethodsOne hundred ten upper and lower limb amputees suffering from RLP will be recruited and assigned randomly to one of the surgical interventions (TMR, RPNI, or neuroma transposition) in an equal allocation ratio. Complete evaluations will be performed during a baseline period prior to the surgical intervention, and follow-ups will be conducted in short term (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery) and in long term (2 and 4 years post-surgery). After the 12-month follow-up, the study will be unblinded for the evaluator and the participants. If the participant is unsatisfied with the outcome of the treatment at that time, further treatment including one of the other procedures will be discussed in consultation with the clinical investigator at that site.DiscussionA double-blind RCT is necessary for the establishment of evidence-based procedures, hence the motivation for this work. In addition, studies on pain are challenging due to the subjectivity of the experience and the lack of objective evaluation methods. Here, we mitigate this problem by including different pain evaluation methods known to have clinical relevance. We plan to analyse the primary variable, mean change in NRS (0-10) between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach to minimise bias and keep the advantage of randomisation. The secondary outcomes will be analysed on both ITT and per-protocol (PP). An adherence protocol (PP population) analysis will be used for estimating a more realistic effect of treatment.Trial registrationClincialTrials.gov NCT05009394.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

A combination of mupirocin and acidic fibroblast growth factor for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

Publications

A combination of mupirocin and acidic fibroblast growth factor for nipple fissure and nipple pain in breastfeeding women: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets