2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      WHO recommendations on uterotonics for postpartum haemorrhage prevention: what works, and which one?

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The global burden of postpartum haemorrhage Obstetric haemorrhage, especially postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), was responsible for more than a quarter of the estimated 303 000 maternal deaths that occurred globally in 2015.1 PPH—commonly defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours after birth—affects about 6% of all women giving birth.1 Uterine atony is the most common cause of PPH, but it can also be caused by genital tract trauma, retained placental tissue or maternal bleeding disorders. The majority of women who experience PPH have no identifiable risk factor, meaning that PPH prevention programmes rely on universal use of PPH prophylaxis for all women in the immediate postpartum period. Active management of the third stage of labour involves prophylactic administration of a uterotonic agent prior to delivery of the placenta, as well as delayed cord clamping and controlled traction of the umbilical cord (in settings where skilled birth attendants are available).2 The uterotonic is the most important component in terms of preventing PPH.3 4 In 2012, WHO recommended oxytocin (10 IU, intravenously or intramuscularly) as the uterotonic of choice for PPH prevention at birth for all women.5 Recent innovations in PPH prevention and treatment research There have been major new developments in PPH prevention and treatment in the last decade, including technological advancements (such as inhalational oxytocin and the non-pneumatic antishock garment), new treatment strategies (such as advance distribution of prophylactic misoprostol for self-administration after birth, administration of oxytocin via Uniiject and care bundles for PPH management), as well as large multicountry trials of tranexamic acid for PPH treatment and a heat-stable formulation of carbetocin for PPH prevention.6–12 The increasing number of PPH prevention and management options makes it challenging for providers and health system stakeholders to choose where and how to invest limited resources in order to optimise health outcomes. Multiple uterotonics have been evaluated for PPH prevention over the past four decades, including oxytocin receptor agonists (oxytocin and carbetocin), prostaglandin analogues (misoprostol, sulprostone, carboprost), ergot alkaloids (such as ergometrine/methylergometrine) and combinations of these (oxytocin plus ergometrine, or oxytocin plus misoprostol). Trial evidence for each of these options has been meta-analysed through multiple separate Cochrane systematic reviews that compared one uterotonic option against several other options or placebo/no treatment. However, subtle but important methodological differences have emerged between these reviews. For example, there are differences in trial eligibility criteria, review outcomes and subgroup comparisons. Some uterotonic comparisons (eg, oxytocin vs misoprostol) appear in more than one review. Cochrane review standards have evolved over time, meaning more recent reviews may have higher methodological rigour. These problems were largely resolved by a recent Cochrane review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of 140 trials (88 947 women) that considered multiple uterotonic drug options (single or combination) and placebo or no treatment, first published in April 2018.13 A single review of multiple options meant standardisation of trial eligibility, risk of bias assessment and outcome reporting. The NMA also reported on comparisons of all options based on the full evidence network, providing estimates of effect even in the absence of a direct comparison (‘head-to-head’) trial. The NMA was closely followed by important new findings from a WHO-led, multicountry PPH prevention trial in June 2018.11 This trial randomised nearly 30 000 women in 10 countries to either oxytocin (the recommended standard of care) or a heat-stable formulation of carbetocin, and found that heat-stable carbetocin was non-inferior to oxytocin for the prevention of PPH (defined as blood loss of at least 500 mL), and the use of additional uterotonic agents. What should clinicians make of these important new findings? It was in this context that the Executive Guideline Steering Group on Maternal and Perinatal Health advised WHO to prioritise the updating of its recommendations on uterotonics for PPH prevention.14 Updated WHO recommendations on uterotonics for PPH prevention In December 2018, WHO issued new recommendations on uterotonics for PPH prevention (table 1).15 Oxytocin (10 IU, intravenously or intramuscularly) remains the recommended uterotonic of choice for all births. In settings where oxytocin is unavailable (or its quality cannot be guaranteed), the use of other injectable uterotonics (carbetocin, or if appropriate ergometrine/methylergometrine or oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) or oral misoprostol is recommended for the prevention of PPH. In those settings where skilled health personnel are not present to administer injectable uterotonics, the administration of misoprostol (400 µg or 600 µg orally) by community healthcare workers and lay health workers is recommended for the prevention of PPH. Table 1 WHO recommendations on uterotonics for PPH prevention Context Recommendation Efficacy and safety of uterotonics for PPH prevention 1. The use of an effective uterotonic for the prevention of PPH during the third stage of labour is recommended for all births. To effectively prevent PPH, only one of the following uterotonics should be used: Oxytocin (recommendation 1.1). Carbetocin (recommendation 1.2). Misoprostol (recommendation 1.3). Ergometrine/methylergometrine (recommendation 1.4). Oxytocin and ergometrine fixed dose combination (recommendation 1.5). 1.1 The use of oxytocin (10 IU, IM/IV) is recommended for the prevention of PPH for all births. 1.2 The use of carbetocin (100 µg, IM/IV) is recommended for the prevention of PPH for all births in contexts where its cost is comparable to other effective uterotonics. 1.3 The use of misoprostol (either 400 µg or 600 µg, PO) is recommended for the prevention of PPH for all births. 1.4 The use of ergometrine/methylergometrine (200 µg, IM/IV) is recommended for the prevention of PPH in contexts where hypertensive disorders can be safely excluded prior to its use. 1.5 The use of oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination (5 IU/500 µg, IM) is recommended for the prevention of PPH in contexts where hypertensive disorders can be safely excluded prior to its use. 1.6 Injectable prostaglandins (carboprost or sulprostone) are not recommended for the prevention of PPH. Choice of uterotonics for PPH prevention 2. In settings where multiple uterotonic options are available, oxytocin (10 IU, IM/IV) is the recommended uterotonic agent for the prevention of PPH for all births. 3. In settings where oxytocin is unavailable (or its quality cannot be guaranteed), the use of other injectable uterotonics (carbetocin, or if appropriate ergometrine/methylergometrine or oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) or oral misoprostol is recommended for the prevention of PPH. 4. In settings where skilled health personnel are not present to administer injectable uterotonics, the administration of misoprostol (400 µg or 600 µg PO) by community healthcare workers and lay health workers is recommended for the prevention of PPH. IM, intramuscular; IV, intravenous; PO, per oral; PPH, postpartum haemorrhage. It should be noted that the uterotonic options containing ergometrine (ergometrine alone, and oxytocin–ergometrine fixed-dose combination) are context-specific recommendations, on account of the need to exclude the presence of hypertensive disorders prior to its use. This condition may limit their use in those settings where there is lack of screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. WHO also made a context-specific recommendation regarding the use of carbetocin for PPH prevention (use carbetocin only in contexts where its cost is comparable with other effective uterotonics). While carbetocin is effective in preventing PPH (with minimal side effects), it is not available in many settings due to its high cost—in the UK, its cost is nearly 20 times that of oxytocin.16 The WHO guideline panel acknowledged that carbetocin may be cost-effective in some high-income settings (where the cost of managing PPH and its complications is high). However, they considered it uncertain whether the additional benefits of carbetocin justify the additional cost of its routine implementation at the current unit price—particularly in lower—resource settings where effective but cheaper alternatives of uterotonics are already available. The use of the heat-stable formulation of carbetocin could offer cost reductions in avoiding the cold-chain transport and storage costs associated with heat-sensitive uterotonics. The Guideline Development Group noted that the contextual nature of this recommendation may change in the future, considering the signed memorandum of understanding between WHO and the manufacturer of the heat-stable formulation of carbetocin to make this option available in public sector facilities of low-income and low-middle-income countries at an affordable and sustainable price (compared with the United Nations Population Fund price of oxytocin).11 The recommendations incorporated several methodological advancements compared with previous iterations. The NMA was updated (now contains 196 trials, 135 559 women) to incorporate latest evidence, including the large WHO trial of heat-stable carbetocin.11 13 This also required the application of the latest Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group’s guidance on using NMA to a WHO guideline development process.17 18 The recommendations have placed greater emphasis on a woman-centred approach, incorporating findings from a qualitative systematic review of women’s perspectives and experiences of PPH prevention and treatment.19 This evidence proved integral to the panel’s consideration of the value women place on outcomes related to blood loss after birth, the acceptability and feasibility of different uterotonics, and their possible impacts on health equity. The recommendations were developed and released rapidly (approximately 7 months after the first publication of the NMA20) through the innovative WHO ‘living guideline’ approach to maternal and perinatal health recommendations, whereby literature surveillance and systematic prioritisation guide the updating of selected high-priority recommendations on a continuous basis.14 This approach has two major advantages—it allows WHO to respond much more quickly to important changes in the evidence base (ensuring up-to-date guidance is always available), and it significantly reduces the time and resources required for updating a guideline (by focusing efforts only on those individual recommendations where an update is warranted). As uterotonics for PPH prevention is an active research area, this new approach will allow WHO to respond rapidly as new trial evidence continues to emerge. This can in turn translate into more rapid improvements in healthcare services and health outcomes for women. Adapt the WHO recommendations to national and local health policies and programmes In light of the updated recommendations, WHO is urging international agencies and donors, as well as professional associations, clinicians and national health systems stakeholders to reassess their national health policies and protocols on PPH prevention. Stakeholders will need to consider contextual factors (such as the availability of quality-certified medicines, and the availability and training of skilled health personnel) to determine which uterotonic option should be used (see figure 1). Figure 1 Contextual considerations in selecting a uterotonic for postpartum haemorrhage prevention (only quality-assured medicines should be used regardless of which uterotonic option is selected). IM, intramuscular; IV, intravenous. Create the necessary conditions to encourage improvements in clinical care This is an opportunity to ensure that health facilities have copies of updated, evidence-based PPH prevention and treatment protocols, job aids and decision-support tools available for immediate use in labour, delivery and postpartum areas. Any facility where women give birth requires access to a functioning supply chain, in order to ensure 24/7 availability of uterotonics for PPH prevention, as well as the necessary medicines and equipment to provide emergency obstetric care should PPH occur. Skilled heath personnel require competency-based in-service training, as well as ongoing supportive supervision to ensure their PPH prevention and management skills are up to date. Health facilities and clinicians can also take this opportunity to review their PPH prevention, treatment and case fatality reduction targets, and ensure that a data-driven approach is being taken to drive improvements in care at the time of childbirth. Quality improvement activities need to engage all key stakeholders, including clinicians, programme management and quality improvement staff. Criterion-based audits of clinical records can be used to assess the effectiveness of prevention and management of PPH at a health facility level. Ensure good-quality uterotonics are available Oxytocin, ergometrine and the fixed-dose combination of oxytocin and ergometrine are heat-sensitive, requiring transport and storage at 2°C–8°C. In settings where this cannot be guaranteed, the quality and effectiveness of these options may be limited.21 Substandard quality misoprostol has also been identified in some health facilities.22 A quality issue affecting one uterotonic may suggest that there are quality issues affecting other uterotonic options that have been procured, transported or stored under similar conditions. It is therefore advised that only quality-certified uterotonic medicines should be procured. While some manufacturer labelling may seem to indicate that oxytocin is stable at room temperature, stability may not have been tested in the much warmer conditions that are typical to many low-resource countries, and different formulations have different stability characteristics. To prevent its degradation and to safeguard its quality, oxytocin should always be stored in refrigeration, regardless of labelling. Conclusion The majority of PPH-related morbidity and mortality are preventable through the effective implementation of evidence-based guidelines. These new WHO recommendations guide skilled health personnel and other stakeholders on how best to use uterotonics to prevent PPH in women giving birth in facility or community settings in high-income, middle-income or low-income countries. To implement these recommendations, personnel need effective, quality-certified uterotonics, and the necessary training, equipment and support to ensure that all women have access to good-quality PPH prevention and management care at birth.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Epidemiology of postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review.

          Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is an important cause of maternal mortality. We conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of PPH with the objective of evaluating its magnitude both globally and in different regions and settings: global figures, as well as regional, country and provincial variations, are likely to exist but are currently unknown. We used prespecified criteria to select databases, recorded the database characteristics and assessed their methodological quality. After establishing PPH (>or=500 mL blood loss) and severe PPH (SSPH) (>or=1000 mL blood loss) as main outcomes, we found 120 datasets (involving a total of 3,815,034 women) that reported PPH and 70 datasets (505,379 women) that reported SPPH in the primary analysis. The prevalence of PPH and SPPH is approximately 6% and 1.86% of all deliveries, respectively, with a wide variation across regions of the world. The figures we obtained give a rough estimate of the prevalence of PPH and suggest the existence of some variations. For a reliable picture of PPH worldwide - its magnitude, distribution and consequences - a global survey tackling this condition is necessary.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The WOMAN Trial (World Maternal Antifibrinolytic Trial): tranexamic acid for the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international randomised, double blind placebo controlled trial

            Background Each year, worldwide about 530,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Of the deaths 99% are in low and middle income countries. Obstetric haemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal mortality, most occurring in the postpartum period. Systemic antifibrinolytic agents are widely used in surgery to prevent clot breakdown (fibrinolysis) in order to reduce surgical blood loss. At present there is little reliable evidence from randomised trials on the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. Methods The Trial aims to determine the effect of early administration of tranexamic acid on mortality, hysterectomy and other morbidities (surgical interventions, blood transfusion, risk of non-fatal vascular events) in women with clinically diagnosed postpartum haemorrhage. The use of health services and safety, especially thromboembolic effect, on breastfed babies will also be assessed. The trial will be a large, pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial among 15,000 women with a clinical diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage. All legally adult women with clinically diagnosed postpartum haemorrhage following vaginal delivery of a baby or caesarean section will potentially be eligible. The fundamental eligibility criterion is the responsible clinician's 'uncertainty' as to whether or not to use an antifibrinolytic agent in a particular woman with postpartum haemorrhage. Treatment will entail a dose of tranexamic acid (1 gram by intravenous injection) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) will be given as soon as possible after randomisation. A second dose may be given if after 30 minutes bleeding continues, or if it stops and restarts within 24 hours after the first dose. The main analyses will be on an 'intention to treat' basis, irrespective of whether the allocated treatment was received or not. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will be based on type of delivery; administration or not of prophylactic uterotonics; and on whether the clinical decision to consider trial entry was based primarily on estimated blood loss alone or on haemodynamic instability. A study with 15,000 women will have over 90% power to detect a 25% reduction from 4% to 3% in the primary endpoint of mortality or hysterectomy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN76912190 and Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00872469
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

              Background Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. There are several uterotonic agents for preventing PPH but there is still uncertainty about which agent is most effective with the least side effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in April 2018 and was updated to incorporate results from a recent large WHO trial. Objectives To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the least side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 May 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. Data collection and analysis At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included blood loss and related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, maternal well-being and satisfaction and side effects. Primary outcomes were also reported for pre-specified subgroups, stratifying by mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of administration. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents. Main results The network meta-analysis included 196 trials (135,559 women) involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 53 countries (including high-, middle- and low-income countries). Most trials were performed in a hospital setting (187/196, 95.4%) with women undergoing a vaginal birth (71.5%, 140/196). Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. The three highest ranked uterotonic agents for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination and carbetocin. There is evidence that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84, moderate certainty), carbetocin (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, moderate certainty) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86, low certainty) may reduce PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All agents except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. High-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) make little or no difference in the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin meanwhile the evidence on carbetocin was of very low certainty. High-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol is less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with oxytocin (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42). Despite the comparable relative treatment effects between all uterotonics (except misoprostol) and oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combinations and carbetocin were the highest ranked agents for PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73, high certainty) and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70, moderate certainty) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were rare in the included randomised trials where they were reported. The two combination regimens were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.18, high certainty) and fever (RR 3.14, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.49, moderate certainty). Ergometrine plus oxytocin increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.93, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.13, moderate certainty) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however absolute effects varied considerably and the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome. Subgroup analyses did not reveal important subgroup differences by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal birth), setting (hospital versus community), risk of PPH (high versus low risk for PPH), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 mcg versus < 600 mcg) and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). Authors' conclusions All agents were generally effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional desirable effects compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination regimens, however, are associated with significant side effects. Carbetocin may be more effective than oxytocin for some outcomes without an increase in side effects. Which drug is best for reducing excessive blood loss after birth? What is the issue? The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out which drug is most effective in preventing excessive blood loss at childbirth and has the least side effects. We collected and analysed all the relevant studies to answer this question (date of search: 24 May 2018). Why is this important? Excessive bleeding after birth is the most common reason why mothers die in childbirth worldwide. Although most women will have moderate bleeding at birth, others may bleed excessively, and this can pose a serious risk to their health and life. To reduce excessive bleeding at birth, the routine administration of a drug to contract the uterus (uterotonic) has become standard practice across the world. Different drugs given routinely at birth have been used for reducing excessive bleeding. They include oxytocin, misoprostol, ergometrine, carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and combinations of these drugs, each with different effectiveness and side effects. Some of the side effects identified include: vomiting, high blood pressure and fever. Currently, oxytocin is recommended as the standard drug to reduce excessive bleeding. We analysed all the available evidence to compare the effectiveness and side-effect profiles for each drug. What evidence did we find? We found 196 studies involving 135,559 women. We compared seven uterotonic agents against each other and against women receiving no uterotonic. Studies were conducted across 53 countries. In most studies women were giving birth normally and in a hospital. The analysis suggests that all drugs are effective for preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 500 mL when compared with no routine uterotonic treatment. Compared with oxytocin (the standard recommended drug), the three best drugs for this outcome were a combination of ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin, and a combination of misoprostol plus oxytocin. We found the other drugs misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All drugs except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins are effective for preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 1000 mL when compared with no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin make little or no difference in this outcome compared with oxytocin. It is uncertain whether carbetocin and ergometrine alone make any difference to this outcome. However, misoprostol is less effective in preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe birth complication as these are rare in such studies. The two combinations of drugs were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, women receiving misoprostol plus oxytocin combination are more likely to suffer vomiting and fever. Women receiving ergometrine plus oxytocin are also more likely to suffer vomiting and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome. The analyses gave similar results irrespective of whether women were giving birth normally or by caesarean, in a hospital or in the community, were at high or low risk for bleeding excessively after birth, whether they received a high or a low dose of misoprostol and whether they received a bolus or an infusion of oxytocin or both. What does this mean? All agents were generally effective for preventing excessive bleeding when compared with no uterotonic drug treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional benefits compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination drugs, however, are associated with significant side effects that women might find disturbing compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin may have some additional benefits compared with oxytocin and appears to be without an increase in side effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2019
                11 April 2019
                : 4
                : 2
                : e001466
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research , World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ] departmentMaternal and Child Health Program , Burnet Institute , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ] departmentCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth , University of Liverpool , Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [4 ] departmentInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research , University of Birmingham, Birmingham Women's Hospital Foundation Trust , Birmingham, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Joshua P Vogel; vogeljo@ 123456who.int
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-7096
                Article
                bmjgh-2019-001466
                10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001466
                6509591
                31139461
                dbc26c0a-5260-430a-8eb7-c70fcdfe220b
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 04 February 2019
                : 10 March 2019
                : 16 March 2019
                Categories
                Editorial
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                maternal health,postpartum haemorrhage,prevention,uterotonics

                Comments

                Comment on this article