Background: Iron and folic acid supplementation have been recommended in pregnancy for anaemia prevention, and may improve other maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes. Objectives: To examine the effects of daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy, either alone or in combination with folic acid or with other vitamins and minerals, as an intervention in antenatal care. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Registry on 18 January 2024 (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings), and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated the effects of oral supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid, or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy were included. Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, ascertained trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for primary outcomes. We anticipated high heterogeneity amongst trials; we pooled trial results using a random-effects model (average treatment effect). Main results: We included 57 trials involving 48,971 women. A total of 40 trials compared the effects of daily oral supplements with iron to placebo or no iron; eight trials evaluated the effects of iron + folic acid compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Iron supplementation compared to placebo or no iron. Maternal outcomes: Iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia (4.0% versus 7.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47; 14 trials, 13,543 women; low-certainty evidence) and iron deficiency at term (44.0% versus 66.0%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68; 8 trials, 2873 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces maternal iron-deficiency anaemia at term (5.0% versus 18.4%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63; 7 trials, 2704 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. There is probably little to no difference in maternal death (2 versus 4 events, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 3 trials, 14,060 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for adverse effects (21.6% versus 18.0%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02; 12 trials, 2423 women; very low-certainty evidence) and severe anaemia (Hb < 70 g/L) in the second/third trimester (< 1% versus 3.6%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20; 8 trials, 1398 women; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported clinical malaria or infection during pregnancy. Infant outcomes: Women taking iron supplements are probably less likely to have infants with low birthweight (5.2% versus 6.1%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; 12 trials, 18,290 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. However, the evidence is very uncertain for infant birthweight (MD 24.9 g, 95% CI -125.81 to 175.60; 16 trials, 18,554 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference in preterm birth (7.6% versus 8.2%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; 11 trials, 18,827 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be little to no difference in neonatal death (1.4% versus 1.5%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; 4 trials, 17,243 infants; low-certainty evidence) or congenital anomalies, including neural tube defects (41 versus 48 events; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33; 4 trials, 14,377 infants; low-certainty evidence). Iron + folic supplementation compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Maternal outcomes: Daily oral supplementation with iron + folic acid probably reduces maternal anaemia at term (12.1% versus 25.5%; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 4 trials, 1962 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce maternal iron deficiency at term (3.6% versus 15%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99; 1 trial, 131 women; low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of iron + folic acid on maternal iron-deficiency anaemia (10.8% versus 25%; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09; 1 trial, 131 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal deaths (no events; 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for adverse effects (21.0% versus 0.0%; RR 44.32, 95% CI 2.77 to 709.09; 1 trial, 456 women; low-certainty evidence), and the evidence is very uncertain for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester (< 1% versus 5.6%; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63; 4 trials, 506 women; very low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infant outcomes: There may be little to no difference in infant low birthweight (33.4% versus 40.2%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.74; 2 trials, 1311 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infants born to women who received iron + folic acid during pregnancy probably had higher birthweight (MD 57.73 g, 95% CI 7.66 to 107.79; 2 trials, 1365 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. There may be little to no difference in other infant outcomes, including preterm birth (19.4% versus 19.2%; RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.00; 3 trials, 1497 infants; low-certainty evidence), neonatal death (3.4% versus 4.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.30; 1 trial, 1793 infants; low-certainty evidence), or congenital anomalies (1.7% versus 2.4; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.40; 1 trial, 1652 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. A total of 19 trials were conducted in malaria-endemic countries, or in settings with some malaria risk. No studies reported maternal clinical malaria; one study reported data on placental malaria. Authors' conclusions: Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia and iron deficiency at term. For other maternal and infant outcomes, there was little to no difference between groups or the evidence was uncertain. Future research is needed to examine the effects of iron supplementation on other maternal and infant health outcomes, including infant iron status, growth, and development.
BACKGROUND: Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the increased demands of the developing fetus, leading to potentially adverse effects on the mother and baby. A consensus is yet to be reached regarding the replacement of iron and folic acid supplementation with MMNs. Since the last update of this Cochrane Review in 2017, evidence from several trials has become available. The findings of this review will be critical to inform policy on micronutrient supplementation in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits of oral multiple-micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: For this 2018 update, on 23 February 2018 we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We also contacted experts in the field for additional and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective randomised controlled trials evaluating MMN supplementation with iron and folic acid during pregnancy and its effects on pregnancy outcomes were eligible, irrespective of language or the publication status of the trials. We included cluster-randomised trials, but excluded quasi-randomised trials. Trial reports that were published as abstracts were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 21 trials (involving 142,496 women) as eligible for inclusion in this review, but only 20 trials (involving 141,849 women) contributed data. Of these 20 trials, 19 were conducted in low- and middle-income countries and compared MMN supplements with iron and folic acid to iron, with or without folic acid. One trial conducted in the UK compared MMN supplementation with placebo. In total, eight trials were cluster-randomised.MMN with iron and folic acid versus iron, with or without folic acid (19 trials)MMN supplementation probably led to a slight reduction in preterm births (average risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.01; 18 trials, 91,425 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and babies considered small-for-gestational age (SGA) (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97; 17 trials; 57,348 participants; moderate-quality evidence), though the CI for the pooled effect for preterm births just crossed the line of no effect. MMN reduced the number of newborn infants identified as low birthweight (LBW) (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.91; 18 trials, 68,801 participants; high-quality evidence). We did not observe any differences between groups for perinatal mortality (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 15 trials, 63,922 participants; high-quality evidence). MMN supplementation led to slightly fewer stillbirths (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; 17 trials, 97,927 participants; high-quality evidence) but, again, the CI for the pooled effect just crossed the line of no effect. MMN supplementation did not have an important effect on neonatal mortality (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 14 trials, 80,964 participants; high-quality evidence). We observed little or no difference between groups for the other maternal and pregnancy outcomes: maternal anaemia in the third trimester (average RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15; 9 trials, 5912 participants), maternal mortality (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.54; 6 trials, 106,275 participants), miscarriage (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04; 12 trials, 100,565 participants), delivery via a caesarean section (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; 5 trials, 12,836 participants), and congenital anomalies (average RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.25 to 7.12; 2 trials, 1958 participants). However, MMN supplementation probably led to a reduction in very preterm births (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; 4 trials, 37,701 participants). We were unable to assess a number of prespecified, clinically important outcomes due to insufficient or non-available data.When we assessed primary outcomes according to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for the review overall was moderate to high. We graded the following outcomes as high quality: LBW, perinatal mortality, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality. The outcomes of preterm birth and SGA we graded as moderate quality; both were downgraded for funnel plot asymmetry, indicating possible publication bias.We carried out sensitivity analyses excluding trials with high levels of sample attrition (> 20%). We found that results were consistent with the main analyses for all outcomes. We explored heterogeneity through subgroup analyses by maternal height, maternal body mass index (BMI), timing of supplementation, dose of iron, and MMN supplement formulation (UNIMMAP versus non-UNIMMAP). There was a greater reduction in preterm births for women with low BMI and among those who took non-UNIMMAP supplements. We also observed subgroup differences for maternal BMI and maternal height for SGA, indicating greater impact among women with greater BMI and height. Though we found that MMN supplementation made little or no difference to perinatal mortality, the analysis demonstrated substantial statistical heterogeneity. We explored this heterogeneity using subgroup analysis and found differences for timing of supplementation, whereby higher impact was observed with later initiation of supplementation. For all other subgroup analyses, the findings were inconclusive.MMN versus placebo (1 trial)A single trial in the UK found little or no important effect of MMN supplementation on preterm births, SGA, or LBW but did find a reduction in maternal anaemia in the third trimester (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85), when compared to placebo. This trial did not measure our other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a positive impact of MMN supplementation with iron and folic acid on several birth outcomes. MMN supplementation in pregnancy led to a reduction in babies considered LBW, and probably led to a reduction in babies considered SGA. In addition, MMN probably reduced preterm births. No important benefits or harms of MMN supplementation were found for mortality outcomes (stillbirths, perinatal and neonatal mortality). These findings may provide some basis to guide the replacement of iron and folic acid supplements with MMN supplements for pregnant women residing in low- and middle-income countries.
BACKGROUND: Vitamin C supplementation may help reduce the risk of pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and maternal anaemia. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C supplementation in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin C supplementation, alone or in combination with other separate supplements on pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, side effects and use of health resources.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating vitamin C supplementation in pregnant women. Interventions using a multivitamin supplement containing vitamin C or where the primary supplement was iron were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials involving 24,300 women are included in this review. Overall, 11 trials were judged to be of low risk of bias, eight were high risk of bias and for 10 trials it was unclear. No clear differences were seen between women supplemented with vitamin C alone or in combination with other supplements compared with placebo or no control for the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.89 to 1.49; 20,038 participants; 11 studies; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), neonatal death (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; 19,575 participants; 11 studies; I² = 0%), perinatal death (average RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.49; 17,105 participants; seven studies; I² = 35%), birthweight (mean difference (MD) 26.88 g, 95% CI -18.81 to 72.58; 17,326 participants; 13 studies; I² = 69%), intrauterine growth restriction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 20,361 participants; 12 studies; I² = 15%; high quality evidence), preterm birth (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 22,250 participants; 16 studies; I² = 49%; high quality evidence), preterm PROM (prelabour rupture of membranes) (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; 16,825 participants; 10 studies; I² = 70%; low quality evidence), term PROM (average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.56; 2674 participants; three studies; I² = 87%), and clinical pre-eclampsia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 21,956 participants; 16 studies; I² = 41%; high quality evidence).Women supplemented with vitamin C alone or in combination with other supplements compared with placebo or no control were at decreased risk of having a placental abruption (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92; 15,755 participants; eight studies; I² = 0%; high quality evidence) and had a small increase in gestational age at birth (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61; 14,062 participants; nine studies; I² = 65%), however they were also more likely to self-report abdominal pain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37; 1877 participants; one study). In the subgroup analyses based on the type of supplement, vitamin C supplementation alone was associated with a reduced risk of preterm PROM (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91; 1282 participants; five studies; I² = 0%) and term PROM (average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; 170 participants; one study). Conversely, the risk of term PROM was increased when supplementation included vitamin C and vitamin E (average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.23; 3060 participants; two studies; I² = 0%). There were no differences in the effects of vitamin C on other outcomes in the subgroup analyses examining the type of supplement. There were no differing patterns in other subgroups of women based on underlying risk of pregnancy complications, timing of commencement of supplementation or dietary intake of vitamin C prior to trial entry. The GRADE quality of the evidence was high for intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption, moderate for stillbirth and clinical pre-eclampsia, low for preterm PROM.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not support routine vitamin C supplementation alone or in combination with other supplements for the prevention of fetal or neonatal death, poor fetal growth, preterm birth or pre-eclampsia. Further research is required to elucidate the possible role of vitamin C in the prevention of placental abruption and prelabour rupture of membranes. There was no convincing evidence that vitamin C supplementation alone or in combination with other supplements results in other important benefits or harms.
BACKGROUND: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 March 2015), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, versus standard care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We assessed studies for risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). Most of the data included in the review came from the three large, well-designed cluster-randomised trials that took place in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Zimbabwe. All results have been adjusted for the cluster design effect. All of the trials were at some risk of bias as blinding of women and staff was not feasible with this type of intervention. For primary outcomes, evidence was graded as being of moderate or low quality, with downgrading decisions due to risks of bias and imprecision of effects.The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal-oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31; five trials, 56,431 babies; moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, two trials); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, three trials).There was no clear difference between groups for our other primary outcomes: maternal death (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.57, three cluster-randomised trials, 51,504 women, low-quality evidence); hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (various definitions including pre-eclampsia) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, six studies, 54,108 women, low-quality evidence); preterm birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; seven studies, 53,661 women, moderate-quality evidence); and small-for-gestational age (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, four studies 43,045 babies, moderate-quality evidence).Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02, five studies, 43,048 babies, moderate quality evidence). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other secondary clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.
BACKGROUND: Vitamin E supplementation may help reduce the risk of pregnancy complications involving oxidative stress, such as pre-eclampsia. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin E supplementation in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vitamin E supplementation, alone or in combination with other separate supplements, on pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, side effects and use of health services.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating vitamin E supplementation in pregnant women. We excluded interventions using a multivitamin supplement that contained vitamin E.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials, involving 22,129 women were eligible for this review. Four trials did not contribute data. All of the remaining 17 trials assessed vitamin E in combination with vitamin C and/or other agents. Overall the risk of bias ranged from low to unclear to high; 10 trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, six trials to be at unclear risk of bias and five trials to be at high risk of bias. No clear difference was found between women supplemented with vitamin E in combination with other supplements during pregnancy compared with placebo for the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.56, nine studies, 19,023 participants, I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), neonatal death (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.13, nine trials, 18,617 participants, I² = 0%), pre-eclampsia (average RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 14 trials, 20,878 participants; I² = 48%; moderate quality evidence), preterm birth (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, 11 trials, 20,565 participants, I² = 52%; high quality evidence) or intrauterine growth restriction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06, 11 trials, 20,202 participants, I² = 17%; high quality evidence). Women supplemented with vitamin E in combination with other supplements compared with placebo were at decreased risk of having a placental abruption (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, seven trials, 14,922 participants, I² = 0%; high quality evidence). Conversely, supplementation with vitamin E was associated with an increased risk of self-reported abdominal pain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37, one trial, 1877 participants) and term prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) (average RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, two trials, 2504 participants, I² = 0%); however, there was no corresponding increased risk for preterm PROM (average RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.75, five trials, 1999 participants, I² = 66%; low quality evidence). There were no clear differences between the vitamin E and placebo or control groups for any other maternal or infant outcomes. There were no clear differing patterns in subgroups of women based on the timing of commencement of supplementation or baseline risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The GRADE quality of the evidence was high for preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction and placental abruption, moderate for stillbirth and clinical pre-eclampsia, and low for preterm PROM.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not support routine vitamin E supplementation in combination with other supplements for the prevention of stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, preterm or term PROM or poor fetal growth. Further research is required to elucidate the possible role of vitamin E in the prevention of placental abruption. There was no convincing evidence that vitamin E supplementation in combination with other supplements results in other important benefits or harms.
BACKGROUND: Regular antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy is accepted practice, and while most women have an increase in the number of antenatal visits, there is no consensus as to what constitutes optimal care. 'Specialised' antenatal clinics have been advocated as a way of improving outcomes for women and their infants.
OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of 'specialised' antenatal clinics compared with 'standard' antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies with a multiple pregnancy who received antenatal care specifically designed for women with a multiple pregnancy (as defined by the trial authors) with outcomes in controls who received 'standard' antenatal care (as defined by the trial authors).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Both review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADEpro software.
MAIN RESULTS: Findings were based on the results of a single study with some design limitations.Data were available from one study involving 162 women with a multiple pregnancy. For the only reported primary outcome, perinatal mortality, we are uncertain whether specialised antenatal clinics makes any difference compared to standard care (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.03; 324 infants, very low quality evidence). Women receiving specialised antenatal care were significantly more likely to birth by caesarean section (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.81; 162 women, moderate quality evidence). Data were not reported in the study on the following primary outcomes: small-for-gestational age, very preterm birth or maternal death. There were no differences identified between specialised antenatal care and standard care for other secondary outcomes examined: postnatal depression (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20; 133 women, very low quality evidence), breastfeeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.68; 123 women, very low quality evidence), stillbirth (RR 0.68; 0.12 to 4.04) or neonatal death (RR 2.05; 95% CI 0.19 to 22.39) (324 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited information available from randomised controlled trials to assess the role of 'specialised' antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy compared with 'standard' antenatal care in improving maternal and infant health outcomes. The value of 'specialised' multiple pregnancy clinics in improving health outcomes for women and their infants requires evaluation in appropriately powered and designed randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency, the most common cause of anaemia in pregnancy worldwide, can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe anaemia can have very serious consequences for mothers and babies, but there is controversy about whether treating mild or moderate anaemia provides more benefit than harm.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency (defined as haemoglobin less than 11 g/dL or other equivalent parameters) on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2011), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to June 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 May 2011), Health Technology Assessment Program (HTA) (2 May 2011) and LATINREC (Colombia) (2 May 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 23 trials, involving 3.198 women. We assessed their risk of bias. Three further studies identified are awaiting classification.
MAIN RESULTS: Many of the trials were from low-income countries; they were generally small and frequently methodologically poor. They covered a very wide range of differing drugs, doses and routes of administration, making it difficult to pool data. Oral iron in pregnancy showed a reduction in the incidence of anaemia (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.55, one trial, 125 women) and better haematological indices than placebo (two trials). It was not possible to assess the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia. A trend was found between dose and reported adverse effects. Most trials reported no clinically relevant outcomes nor adverse effects. Although the intramuscular and intravenous routes produced better haematological indices in women than the oral route, no clinical outcomes were assessed and there were insufficient data on adverse effects, for example, on venous thrombosis and severe allergic reactions. Daily low-dose iron supplements may be effective at treating anaemia in pregnancy with less gastrointestinal side effects compared with higher doses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high incidence and burden of disease associated with this condition, there is a paucity of good quality trials assessing clinical maternal and neonatal effects of iron administration in women with anaemia. Daily oral iron treatment improves haematological indices but causes frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects. Parenteral (intramuscular and intravenous) iron enhances haematological response, compared with oral iron, but there are concerns about possible important adverse effects (for intravenous treatment venous thrombosis and allergic reactions and for intramuscular treatment important pain, discolouration and allergic reactions). Large, good quality trials, assessing clinical outcomes (including adverse effects) as well as the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia are required.
OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: Given the widespread prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries, supplementation with multiple micronutrients rather than iron-folate alone, could be of potential benefit to the mother and the fetus. These benefits could relate to prevention of maternal complications and reduction in other adverse pregnancy outcomes such as small-for-gestational age (SGA) births, low birth weight, stillbirths, perinatal and neonatal mortality. This review evaluates the evidence of the impact of multiple micronutrient supplements during pregnancy, in comparison with standard iron-folate supplements, on specific maternal and pregnancy outcomes of relevance to the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). DATA SOURCES/REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Search engines used were PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the WHO regional databases and hand search of bibliographies. A standardized data abstraction and Child Health Epidemiology Reference (CHERG) adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) technique were used for data abstraction and overall quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate summary estimates of utility to the LiST model for the specified outcome of incidence of SGA births. We also evaluated the potential impact of multiple micronutrients on neonatal mortality according to the proportion of deliveries occurring in facilities (using a threshold of 60% to indicate functionality of health systems for skilled births).
RESULTS: We included 17 studies for detailed data abstraction. There was no significant benefit of multiple micronutrients as compared to iron folate on maternal anemia in third trimester [Relative risk (RR) = 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87 - 1.22 (random model)]. Our analysis, however, showed a significant reduction in SGA by 9% [RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86 - 0.96 (fixed model)]. In the fixed model, the SGA outcome remained significant only in women with mean body mass index (BMI) ≥ 22 kg/m2. There was an increased risk of neonatal mortality in studies with majority of births at home [RR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.13-1.92]; such an effect was not evident where ≥ 60% of births occurred in facility settings [RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.81-1.09]. Overall there was no increase in the risk of neonatal mortality [RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.19 (fixed model)].
CONCLUSION: This review provides evidence of a significant benefit of MMN supplementation during pregnancy on reducing SGA births as compared to iron-folate, with no significant increase in the risk of neonatal mortality in populations where skilled birth care is available and majority of births take place in facilities. Given comparability of impacts on maternal anemia, the decision to replace iron-folate with multiple micronutrients during pregnancy may be taken in the context of available services in health systems and birth outcomes monitored.
INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most prevalent nutrient deficiency in the world, particularly during pregnancy. According to the literature, anemia, particularly severe anemia, is associated with increased risk of maternal mortality. It also puts mothers at risk of multiple perinatal complications. Numerous studies in the past have evaluated the impact of supplementation with iron and iron-folate but data regarding the efficacy and quality of evidence of these interventions are lacking. This article aims to address the impact of iron with and without folate supplementation on maternal anemia and provides outcome specific quality according to the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) guidelines.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published randomized and quasi-randomized trials on PubMed and the Cochrane Library as per the CHERG guidelines. The studies selected employed daily supplementation of iron with or without folate compared with no intervention/placebo, and also compared intermittent supplementation with the daily regimen. The studies were abstracted and graded according to study design, limitations, intervention specifics and outcome effects. CHERG rules were then applied to evaluate the impact of these interventions on iron deficiency anemia during pregnancy. Recommendations were made for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST).
RESULTS: After screening 3550 titles, 31 studies were selected for assessment using CHERG criteria. Daily iron supplementation resulted in 73% reduction in the incidence of anemia at term (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 - 0.42; random effects model) and 67% reduction in iron deficiency anemia at term (RR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.16 - 0.69; random model) compared to no intervention/placebo. For this intervention, both these outcomes were graded as 'moderate' quality evidence. Daily supplementation with iron-folate was associated with 73% reduction in anemia at term (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12 - 0.56; random model) with a quality grade of 'moderate'. The effect of the same intervention on iron deficiency anemia was non-significant (RR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.17 - 1.09; random model) and was graded as 'low' quality evidence. There was no difference in rates of anemia at term with intermittent iron-folate vs. daily iron-folate supplementation (RR = 1.61; 95% CI: 0.82 -3.14; random model).
CONCLUSION: Applying the CHERG rules, we recommend a 73% reduction in anemia at term with daily iron (alone) supplementation or iron/folate (combined) vs. no intervention or placebo; for inclusion in the LiST model. Given the paucity of studies of intermittent iron or iron-folate supplementation, especially in developing countries, we recommend further evaluation of this intervention in comparison with daily supplementation regimen.
INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency anemia is the micronutrient deficiency most prevalent in the world primarily affecting young children and pregnant or puerperal women. It is also associated with an increase in perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. Increasing iron demands in pregnancy are common knowledge, however the evidence of a clinical effect of routine iron supplementation in uncomplicated pregnancy is controversial.
AIM: To determine if routine iron supplementation in uncomplicated pregnancy has clinical effects for the mother or newborn.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted in the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Library, Medscape, DARE, United States Preventive Services Task Force and National Guideline Clearinghouse using the keywords iron and pregnancy. Articles published until August 2008 were chosen for the review. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) was used to grade the level of evidence.
RESULTS: Routine iron supplementation in uncomplicated pregnancy increases or maintains the levels of blood iron and ferritin and results in a substantial reduction of women with low hemoglobin. However, this supplementation does not have detectable effects in any of the important clinical outcomes (p.e. preterm labor, duration of pregnancy, cesarean rate, birthweight, perinatal mortality or Apgar at birth). Iron supplementation is also responsible for some undesired effects.
DISCUSSION: The evidence seems to show that there are no clinical improvements to recommend routine iron supplementation in all pregnancies. Women who show signs or symptoms of anemia at any time during pregnancy should be evaluated.
Background: Iron and folic acid supplementation have been recommended in pregnancy for anaemia prevention, and may improve other maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes. Objectives: To examine the effects of daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy, either alone or in combination with folic acid or with other vitamins and minerals, as an intervention in antenatal care. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Registry on 18 January 2024 (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings), and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated the effects of oral supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid, or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy were included. Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, ascertained trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for primary outcomes. We anticipated high heterogeneity amongst trials; we pooled trial results using a random-effects model (average treatment effect). Main results: We included 57 trials involving 48,971 women. A total of 40 trials compared the effects of daily oral supplements with iron to placebo or no iron; eight trials evaluated the effects of iron + folic acid compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Iron supplementation compared to placebo or no iron. Maternal outcomes: Iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia (4.0% versus 7.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47; 14 trials, 13,543 women; low-certainty evidence) and iron deficiency at term (44.0% versus 66.0%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68; 8 trials, 2873 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces maternal iron-deficiency anaemia at term (5.0% versus 18.4%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63; 7 trials, 2704 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. There is probably little to no difference in maternal death (2 versus 4 events, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 3 trials, 14,060 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for adverse effects (21.6% versus 18.0%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02; 12 trials, 2423 women; very low-certainty evidence) and severe anaemia (Hb < 70 g/L) in the second/third trimester (< 1% versus 3.6%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20; 8 trials, 1398 women; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported clinical malaria or infection during pregnancy. Infant outcomes: Women taking iron supplements are probably less likely to have infants with low birthweight (5.2% versus 6.1%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; 12 trials, 18,290 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. However, the evidence is very uncertain for infant birthweight (MD 24.9 g, 95% CI -125.81 to 175.60; 16 trials, 18,554 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference in preterm birth (7.6% versus 8.2%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; 11 trials, 18,827 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be little to no difference in neonatal death (1.4% versus 1.5%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; 4 trials, 17,243 infants; low-certainty evidence) or congenital anomalies, including neural tube defects (41 versus 48 events; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33; 4 trials, 14,377 infants; low-certainty evidence). Iron + folic supplementation compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Maternal outcomes: Daily oral supplementation with iron + folic acid probably reduces maternal anaemia at term (12.1% versus 25.5%; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 4 trials, 1962 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce maternal iron deficiency at term (3.6% versus 15%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99; 1 trial, 131 women; low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of iron + folic acid on maternal iron-deficiency anaemia (10.8% versus 25%; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09; 1 trial, 131 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal deaths (no events; 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for adverse effects (21.0% versus 0.0%; RR 44.32, 95% CI 2.77 to 709.09; 1 trial, 456 women; low-certainty evidence), and the evidence is very uncertain for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester (< 1% versus 5.6%; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63; 4 trials, 506 women; very low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infant outcomes: There may be little to no difference in infant low birthweight (33.4% versus 40.2%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.74; 2 trials, 1311 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infants born to women who received iron + folic acid during pregnancy probably had higher birthweight (MD 57.73 g, 95% CI 7.66 to 107.79; 2 trials, 1365 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. There may be little to no difference in other infant outcomes, including preterm birth (19.4% versus 19.2%; RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.00; 3 trials, 1497 infants; low-certainty evidence), neonatal death (3.4% versus 4.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.30; 1 trial, 1793 infants; low-certainty evidence), or congenital anomalies (1.7% versus 2.4; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.40; 1 trial, 1652 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. A total of 19 trials were conducted in malaria-endemic countries, or in settings with some malaria risk. No studies reported maternal clinical malaria; one study reported data on placental malaria. Authors' conclusions: Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia and iron deficiency at term. For other maternal and infant outcomes, there was little to no difference between groups or the evidence was uncertain. Future research is needed to examine the effects of iron supplementation on other maternal and infant health outcomes, including infant iron status, growth, and development.
