Dr Fei-Li Zhao

© 2015 Lang et al. Background: While inferior to oxytocin injection in both efficacy and safety, orally administered misoprostol has been included in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for use in the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in low-resource settings. This study evaluates the costs and health outcomes of use of oral misoprostol to prevent PPH in settings where injectable uterotonics are not available. Methods: A cost-consequences analysis was conducted from the international health system perspective, using data from a recent Cochrane systematic review and WHO's Mother-Baby Package Costing Spreadsheet in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 births in a mixed hospital (40 % births)/community setting (60 % births). Costs were estimated based on 2012 US dollars. Results: Using oxytocin in the hospital setting and misoprostol in the community setting in a cohort of 1000 births, instead of oxytocin (hospital setting) and no treatment (community setting), 22 cases of PPH could be prevented. Six fewer women would require additional uterotonics and four fewer women a blood transfusion. An additional 130 women would experience shivering and an extra 42 women fever. Oxytocin/misoprostol was found to be cost saving (US$320) compared to oxytocin/no treatment. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that, even though misoprostol is not the optimum choice in the prevention of PPH, misoprostol could be an effective and cost-saving choice where oxytocin is not or cannot be used due to a lack of skilled birth attendants, inadequate transport and storage facilities or where a quality assured oxytocin product is not available. These benefits need to be weighed against the large number of additional side effects such as shivering and fever, which have been described as tolerable and of short duration.

Background: Meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety data of thrombin-receptor antagonist (TRA) based on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or coronary artery disease (CAD) and indirect comparisons between TRAs were not available. Objectives: We intended to synthesize the primary end points based on different patient populations (ACS or CAD) as well as perform indirect comparison between two newly invented antiplatelet agents atopaxar and vorapaxar. Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and bleeding events according to thrombolysis in myocardial infarction were selected as primary outcomes, whereas adverse effects were considered as secondary outcomes. Corresponding results were synthesized using Revman 5.1 according to ACS or CAD cohorts. Results: Among the seven included randomized controlled trials, the efficacy end points in the TRA treatment group were favorable compared with placebo. Specifically, the odds ratio (OR) of MACEs was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.22) for patients with ACS and 0.74 (95% CI 0.53-1.05) for the cohort with CAD. The events of bleeding were unanimously superior in the placebo arm for both cohorts. The indirect comparison showed a superior trend in favor of atopaxar over vorapaxar in occurrences of MACEs (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.38-1.32), myocardial infarction (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.13-0.95), and cardiovascular death (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.12-4.24) and caused less incidence of bleeding. Conclusions: Besides being more effective than placebo in improving the incidence of MACEs but with a higher risk of bleeding, TRAs may exert different effects in patients with ACS and CAD. Indirect comparisons also suggested that atopaxar might be better than vorapaxar in lowering the incidence of MACEs, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death and at the same time with lower risks of bleeding.