No abstract

Key Points• The use of low-molecularweight heparin did not improve live-birth rates in nonthrombophilic women with consecutive recurrent miscarriage.• Prophylactic doses of lowmolecular-weight heparin should no longer be prescribed in this clinical setting.It is common practice in many centers to offer antithrombotic medications to women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, in the presence or absence of inherited thrombophilia. Although no benefit of aspirin vs placebo has been clearly demonstrated, a doubleblind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin is lacking. We enrolled 258 pregnant women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage ( ‡2 consecutive miscarriages before 15 weeks' gestation) and a negative thrombophilia workup. They were randomly assigned to receive one daily subcutaneous injection of enoxaparin 40 mg or placebo until 35 weeks' gestation. We included 256 women (mean age 32 years, ‡3 miscarriages: 72%; mean gestational age 39 days of amenorrhea) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 66.6% of 138 who received enoxaparin had a live birth vs 72.9% of 118 who received placebo. The absolute difference was 26% (95% CI, 217.1 to 5.1), excluding a 10% increase in the rate of live-birth on enoxaparin (P 5 .34). In this first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) did not improve the chance of a live birth in nonthrombophilic women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00740545 and the French

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundWe aimed to determine participation rates and factors associated with participation in colorectal (fecal occul blood test) and cervical cancer (Pap-smear) screening among a population of women participating in breast cancer screening.MethodsFrom August to October 2015, a self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to 2 900 women aged 50–65, living in Côte-d’Or, France, and who were up to date with mammogram screening. Polytomic logistic regression was used to identify correlates of participation in both cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Participation in all 3 screenings was chosen as the reference.ResultsStudy participation rate was 66.3% (n = 1856). Besides being compliant with mammogram, respectively 78.3% and 56.6% of respondents were up to date for cervical and colorectal cancer screenings, while 46.2% were compliant with the 3 screenings. Consultation with a gynecologist in the past year was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or female cancer screenings (p<10–4), when consultation with a GP was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or organized cancer screenings (p<0.05). Unemployment, obesity, age>59 and yearly flu vaccine were associated with a lower involvement in cervical cancer screening. Women from high socio-economic classes were more likely to attend only female cancer screenings (p = 0.009). Finally, a low level of physical activity and tobacco use were associated with higher risk of no additional screening participation (p<10–3 and p = 0.027).ConclusionsAmong women participating in breast screening, colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates could be improved. Including communication about these 2 cancer screenings in the mammogram invitation could be worth to explore.