RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis in Great Britain and Ireland: the impact of perceived risk and product licensing on effectiveness
JF Archives of Disease in Childhood
JO Arch Dis Child
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
SP 754
OP 758
DO 10.1136/adc.2006.105304
VO 92
IS 9
A1 Alison Busfield
A1 Andrew McNinch
A1 John Tripp
YR 2007
UL http://adc.bmj.com/content/92/9/754.abstract
AB Objective: To determine current use of vitamin K (VK) prophylaxis in newborns and review the efficacy and effectiveness of regimens used.Design: Efficacy and effectiveness calculated using current practice details, data from Southern Ireland and two previous surveys, together with contemporaneous studies of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB).Setting: Current survey: United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Efficacy and effectiveness tables: United Kingdom and Southern Ireland.Main outcome measures: Current VK prophylaxis following uncomplicated term deliveries. Relative risk of VKDB calculated for the VK actually received and for “intention to treat”.Results: Questionnaire response rate 95% (n = 243), all recommending VK prophylaxis. No association between unit size and route of administration. For uncomplicated term deliveries, 60% recommended intramuscular (IM) prophylaxis, 24% oral and 16% offered both routes without bias. All units offering IM gave a single dose, mostly 1 mg Konakion Neonatal. Oral regimens showed more variation: two thirds gave 2 mg (range 0.5–2 mg), the number of doses ranged from 1 to 11 and many used preparations off-licence or the unlicensed Orakay. IM prophylaxis, if given, provided the best protection (most efficacious) against VKDB. However, on an intention-to-treat basis (effectiveness), there is no statistically significant difference between the risks of VKDB after intended IM VK and after oral prophylaxis intended to continue beyond a week.Conclusions: Although the principles of VK prophylaxis is now accepted by all, there is no uniformity in practice. Omission of prophylaxis appears to be a greater problem for IM than for multi-dose oral prophylaxis, affecting overall effectiveness.