Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.
Abortion, Spontaneous
/ prevention & control
Adolescent
Adult
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ economics
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Parturition
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Trimester, First
Progesterone
/ administration & dosage
Suppositories
/ administration & dosage
United Kingdom
Uterine Hemorrhage
/ drug therapy
Young Adult
EARLY PREGNANCY VAGINAL BLEEDING
FIRST TRIMESTER
LIVE BIRTH
PROGESTERONE
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
THREATENED MISCARRIAGE
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
14
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone ( Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding.
DESIGN
A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding.
SETTING
A total of 48 hospitals in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding.
INTERVENTIONS
Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective.
RESULTS
A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (
CONCLUSIONS
Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32609084
doi: 10.3310/hta24330
pmc: PMC7355406
doi:
Substances chimiques
Suppositories
0
Progesterone
4G7DS2Q64Y
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN14163439']
EudraCT
['2014-002348-42']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-70Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0700452
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/167/26
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Jane P Daniels declares membership of the Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee. Meenakshi Choudhary declares membership of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) Panel and the HTA Prioritisation Committee. Jane E Norman declares membership of the HTA MNCH Panel, that she currently receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, that she participates in a Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee for GlaxoSmithKline plc (Brentford, UK) and that she is a paid consultant for Dilafor AB (Solna, Sweden). She was a member of the HTA and EME Editorial Board from 2012 to 2014. Caroline Overton declares that she was a Mylan clinical educator for general practitioner education about hormone replacement therapy and incorporated private practice in April 2017 (now called Bristol Women’s Clinic Ltd).
Références
BJOG. 2000 Dec;107(12):1471-9
pubmed: 11192102
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Jun;22(35):1-304
pubmed: 29945711
Health Technol Assess. 2016 May;20(41):1-92
pubmed: 27225013
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 07;(7):CD009154
pubmed: 26148507
Biol Res Pregnancy Perinatol. 1987;8(1 1ST Half):26-34
pubmed: 2437967
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 12;348(24):2379-85
pubmed: 12802023
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 06;8:CD005943
pubmed: 30081430
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):168-74
pubmed: 8521065
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Feb;91(2):247-53
pubmed: 9469284
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Dec;129(2):111-8
pubmed: 16815623
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 9;380(19):1815-1824
pubmed: 31067371
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;60(2):67-74
pubmed: 15785074
N Engl J Med. 2007 Aug 2;357(5):462-9
pubmed: 17671254
BJOG. 2020 May;127(6):757-767
pubmed: 32003141
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:139-42, v
pubmed: 24028081
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 Oct;159(10):957-62
pubmed: 16203941
Fertil Steril. 1998 Mar;69(3):471-3
pubmed: 9531879
Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
pubmed: 21225900
Med Decis Making. 1990 Jul-Sep;10(3):212-4
pubmed: 2115096
Ugeskr Laeger. 1967 Dec 14;129(50):1678-9
pubmed: 5889245
Maturitas. 2009 Dec;65 Suppl 1:S43-6
pubmed: 20007011
Fertil Steril. 2000 Feb;73(2):300-4
pubmed: 10685533
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Dec;97(5):421-5
pubmed: 16293412
Br J Cancer. 1976 Dec;34(6):585-612
pubmed: 795448
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2141-8
pubmed: 26605928
Stat Med. 2000 Dec 15;19(23):3219-36
pubmed: 11113956
Lancet. 2006 Aug 12;368(9535):601-11
pubmed: 16905025
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 31;(7):CD004947
pubmed: 23903965
Ann Ostet Ginecol Med Perinat. 1967 Feb;89(2):102-12
pubmed: 5601176
Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):487-94
pubmed: 18615854
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;37(5):588-95
pubmed: 21520315
Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Jan-Feb;8(1):43-52
pubmed: 11866239
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001 Oct;1(1):25-36
pubmed: 19807505
Br J Cancer. 1978 May;37(5):849-57
pubmed: 350254
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1034:200-10
pubmed: 15731312
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702-6
pubmed: 15033648
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 2;6(11):e011864
pubmed: 27807081
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;188(2):419-24
pubmed: 12592250
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):461-75
pubmed: 15127426
Biometrics. 1975 Mar;31(1):103-15
pubmed: 1100130
Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Jan-Feb;14(1):27-35
pubmed: 18037606
Maturitas. 2009 Dec;65 Suppl 1:S47-50
pubmed: 20005647
BJOG. 2006 Aug;113(8):879-89
pubmed: 16827823
Hum Reprod. 1997 May;12(5):1073-9
pubmed: 9194669