S'abonner

Does vaginal progesterone prevent recurrent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and a history of spontaneous preterm birth? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis - 23/08/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.023 
Agustin Conde-Agudelo, MD, MPH, PhD a, b, Roberto Romero, MD, DMedSci a, c, d, e, f,
a Perinatology Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI 
b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 
c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 
d Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 
e Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 
f Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI 

Corresponding author: Roberto Romero, MD, DMedSci.

Abstract

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of vaginal progesterone to prevent recurrent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a history of spontaneous preterm birth.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to February 28, 2022), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Randomized controlled trials that compared vaginal progesterone to placebo or no treatment in asymptomatic women with a singleton gestation and a history of spontaneous preterm birth.

Methods

The primary outcomes were preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes included adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, heterogeneity (I2 test), small-study effects, publication bias, and quality of evidence; performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and calculated 95% prediction intervals and adjusted relative risks.

Results

Ten studies (2958 women) met the inclusion criteria: 7 with a sample size <150 (small studies) and 3 with a sample size >600 (large studies). Among the 7 small studies, 4 were at high risk of bias, 2 were at some concerns of bias, and only 1 was at low risk of bias. All the large studies were at low risk of bias. Vaginal progesterone significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50–0.81; I2=75%; 95% prediction interval, 0.31–1.32; very low-quality evidence) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.92; I2=66%; 95% prediction interval, 0.23–1.68; very low-quality evidence), and the risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.85; I2=67%; 95% prediction interval, 0.16–1.79; low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the vaginal progesterone and the placebo or no treatment groups in other adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes. Subgroup analyses revealed that vaginal progesterone decreased the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.55; I2=0%) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.15–0.49; I2=0%) in the small but not in the large studies (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.09; I2=0% for preterm birth <37 weeks; and relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.13; I2=0% for preterm birth <34 weeks). Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies at low risk of bias indicated that vaginal progesterone did not reduce the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.09) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.15). There was clear evidence of substantial small-study effects in the meta-analyses of preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation because of funnel plot asymmetry and the marked differences in the pooled relative risks obtained from fixed-effect and random-effects models. The adjustment for small-study effects resulted in a markedly reduced and nonsignificant effect of vaginal progesterone on preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.10) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–1.42).

Conclusion

There is no convincing evidence supporting the use of vaginal progesterone to prevent recurrent preterm birth or to improve perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a history of spontaneous preterm birth.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, neonatal morbidity, neonatal mortality, prematurity, preterm delivery, previous preterm birth, progestin, progestogen, small-study effects


Plan


 The authors declare no conflict of interest.
 This research was supported, in part, by the Perinatology Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (NICHD/NIH/DHHS) and, in part, with Federal funds from NICHD/NIH/DHHS under contract number HHSN275201300006C.
 R.R. has contributed to this work as part of his official duties as an employee of the United States Federal Government.
 The funder had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
 This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021275154) on September 23, 2021.


© 2022  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 227 - N° 3

P. 440 - septembre 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Fetal reduction of triplet pregnancies to twins vs singletons: a meta-analysis of survival and pregnancy outcome
  • Kamran Hessami, Mark I. Evans, Ahmed A. Nassr, Jimmy Espinoza, Roopali V. Donepudi, Magdalena Sanz Cortes, Eyal Krispin, Shayan Mostafaei, Michael A. Belfort, Alireza A. Shamshirsaz
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • The amniotic fluid index and oligohydramnios: a deeper dive into the shallow end
  • Joseph R. Wax, Michael G. Pinette

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.