We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the burden of late vitamin K deficiency
bleeding (VKDB) and the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis on the incidence of VKDB. We
searched MEDLINE and other electronic databases, and included all observational
studies including population surveys as well as randomized controlled trials (RCT).
The median (interquartile range) burden of late VKDB was 35 (10.5 to 80) per
100 000 live births in infants who had not received prophylaxis at birth; the
burden was much higher in low- and middle-income countries as compared with
high-income countries-80 (72 to 80) vs 8.8 (5.8 to 17.8) per 100 000 live
births. Two randomized trials evaluated the effect of intramuscular (IM) prophylaxis
on the risk of classical VKDB. Although one trial reported a significant reduction in
the incidence of any bleeding (relative risk (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.96) and moderate to severe bleeding (RR 0.19, 0.08 to 0.46;
number needed to treat (NNT) 74, 47 to 177), the other trial demonstrated a
significant reduction in the risk of secondary bleeding after circumcision in male
neonates (RR 0.18, CI 0.08 to 0.42; NNT 9, 6 to 15). No RCTs evaluated the effect of
vitamin K prophylaxis on late VKDB. Data from four surveillance studies indicate that
the use of IM/subcutaneous vitamin K prophylaxis could significantly reduce the
risk of late VKDB when compared with no prophylaxis (pooled RR 0.02; 95% CI
0.00 to 0.10). When compared with IM prophylaxis, a single oral dose of vitamin K
increased the risk of VKDB (RR 24.5; 95% CI 7.4 to 81.0) but multiple oral
doses did not (RR 3.64; CI 0.82 to 16.3). There is low-quality evidence from
observational studies that routine IM administration of 1 mg of vitamin K at
birth reduces the incidence of late VKDB during infancy. Given the high risk of
mortality and morbidity in infants with late VKDB, it seems appropriate to administer
IM vitamin K prophylaxis to all neonates at birth. Future studies should compare the
efficacy and safety of multiple oral doses with IM vitamin K and also evaluate the
optimal dose of vitamin K in preterm neonates.
Objective: To determine the role of vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to standard treatment in childhood asthma.Study Design: In this placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 60 children aged 6 to 11 years with moderate persistent asthma and randomly assigned them into intervention (2000 IU per day of vitamin D) and placebo groups (n = 30 each). The primary outcome was asthma control as assessed by the childhood asthma control test (C-ACT) scores at 12 weeks post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were improvement in the forced expiration in 1 s (FEV 1 ), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), asthma exacerbations, use of systemic steroids, number of emergency visits, post-intervention vitamin D levels, and adverse outcomes. We analyzed by intention to treat.Results: There was no significant difference between the C-ACT score in the two groups (median [first-third quartile] scores were 25 [24][25][26] in both groups, p = 0.7).Also, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the FEV 1 , FeNO, number of exacerbations, emergency visits, hospital admissions, and adverse outcomes. However, the post-intervention vitamin D levels (ng/ml) were significantly higher in the intervention group (35.5 vs. 18.8; p < 0.001). As compared to the baseline, both the groups showed better asthma control at 12 weeks postintervention, irrespective of the type of intervention.
Conclusion:Vitamin-D supplementation as an adjunct to standard treatment does not improve asthma control in children.
Common causes of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis are post infectious and primary ciliary dyskinesia. There is a need to create awareness about early diagnosis of bronchiectasis as it is often delayed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.