Summary Background Girls and women need effective, safe, and affordable menstrual products. Single-use products are regularly selected by agencies for resource-poor settings; the menstrual cup is a less known alternative. We reviewed international studies on menstrual cup leakage, acceptability, and safety and explored menstrual cup availability to inform programmes. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Popline, Cinahl, Global Health database, Emerald, Google Scholar, Science.gov , and WorldWideScience from database inception to May 14, 2019, for quantitative or qualitative studies published in English on experiences and leakage associated with menstrual cups, and adverse event reports. We also screened the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from the US Food and Drug Administration for events related to menstrual cups. To be eligible for inclusion, the material needed to have information on leakage, acceptability, or safety of menstrual cups. The main outcome of interest was menstrual blood leakage when using a menstrual cup. Safety outcomes of interest included serious adverse events; vaginal abrasions and effects on vaginal microflora; effects on the reproductive, digestive, or urinary tract; and safety in poor sanitary conditions. Findings were tabulated or combined by use of forest plots (random-effects meta-analysis). We also did preliminary estimates on costs and environmental savings potentially associated with cups. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42016047845. Findings Of 436 records identified, 43 studies were eligible for analysis (3319 participants). Most studies reported on vaginal cups (27 [63%] vaginal cups, five [12%] cervical cups, and 11 [25%] mixed types of cups or unknown) and 15 were from low-income and middle-income countries. 22 studies were included in qualitative or quantitative syntheses, of which only three were of moderate-to-high quality. Four studies made a direct comparison between menstrual cups and usual products for the main outcome of leakage and reported leakage was similar or lower for menstrual cups than for disposable pads or tampons (n=293). In all qualitative studies, the adoption of the menstrual cup required a familiarisation phase over several menstrual cycles and peer support improved uptake (two studies in developing countries). In 13 studies, 73% (pooled estimate: n=1144; 95% CI 59–84, I 2 =96%) of participants wished to continue use of the menstrual cup at study completion. Use of the menstrual cup showed no adverse effects on the vaginal flora (four studies, 507 women). We identified five women who reported severe pain or vaginal wounds, six reports of allergies or rashes, nine of urinary tract complaints (three with hydronephrosis), and five of toxic shock syndrome after use of the menstrual ...

BackgroundIntermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy has not been evaluated outside of Africa. Low birthweight (LBW, <2,500 g) is common in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and contributing factors include malaria and reproductive tract infections.MethodsFrom November 2009 to February 2013, we conducted a parallel group, randomised controlled trial in pregnant women (≤26 gestational weeks) in PNG. Sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (1,500/75 mg) plus azithromycin (1 g twice daily for 2 days) (SPAZ) monthly from second trimester (intervention) was compared against sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and chloroquine (450 to 600 mg, daily for three days) (SPCQ) given once, followed by SPCQ placebo (control). Women were assigned to treatment (1:1) using a randomisation sequence with block sizes of 32. Participants were blinded to assignments. The primary outcome was LBW. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.ResultsOf 2,793 women randomised, 2,021 (72.4%) were included in the primary outcome analysis (SPCQ: 1,008; SPAZ: 1,013). The prevalence of LBW was 15.1% (305/2,021). SPAZ reduced LBW (risk ratio [RR]: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60–0.91, P = 0.005; absolute risk reduction (ARR): 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.4–7.6; number needed to treat: 22), and preterm delivery (0.62, 95% CI: 0.43–0.89, P = 0.010), and increased mean birthweight (41.9 g, 95% CI: 0.2–83.6, P = 0.049). SPAZ reduced maternal parasitaemia (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35–0.95, P = 0.029) and active placental malaria (0.68, 95% CI: 0.47–0.98, P = 0.037), and reduced carriage of gonorrhoea (0.66, 95% CI: 0.44–0.99, P = 0.041) at second visit. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs), and the number of SAEs (intervention 13.1% [181/1,378], control 12.7% [174/1,374], P = 0.712) and AEs (intervention 10.5% [144/1,378], control 10.8% [149/1,374], P = 0.737) was similar. A major limitation of the study was the high loss to follow-up for birthweight.ConclusionsSPAZ was efficacious and safe in reducing LBW, possibly acting through multiple mechanisms including the effect on malaria and on sexually transmitted infections. The efficacy of SPAZ in the presence of resistant parasites and the contribution of AZ to bacterial antibiotic resistance require further study. The ability of SPAZ to improve pregnancy outcomes warrants further evaluation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01136850 (06 April 2010).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0258-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.