TY - JOUR
T1 - Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in low-resource countries
T2 - The case for equipoise and the need for efficacy trials
AU - Vogel, Joshua P.
AU - Oladapo, Olufemi T.
AU - Pileggi-Castro, Cynthia
AU - Adejuyigbe, Ebunoluwa A.
AU - Althabe, Fernando
AU - Ariff, Shabina
AU - Ayede, Adejumoke Idowu
AU - Baqui, Abdullah H.
AU - Costello, Anthony
AU - Chikamata, Davy M.
AU - Crowther, Caroline
AU - Fawole, Bukola
AU - Gibbons, Luz
AU - Jobe, Alan H.
AU - Kapasa, Monica Lulu
AU - Kinuthia, John
AU - Kriplani, Alka
AU - Kuti, Oluwafemi
AU - Neilson, James
AU - Patterson, Janna
AU - Piaggio, Gilda
AU - Qureshi, Rahat
AU - Qureshi, Zahida
AU - Sankar, Mari Jeeva
AU - Stringer, Jeffrey S.A.
AU - Temmerman, Marleen
AU - Yunis, Khalid
AU - Bahl, Rajiv
AU - Gülmezoglu, A. Metin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials-the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial-have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO's current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice.
AB - The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials-the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial-have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO's current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045266472&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000398
DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000398
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85045266472
SN - 2059-7908
VL - 2
JO - BMJ Global Health
JF - BMJ Global Health
IS - 3
M1 - e000398
ER -