Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.


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
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

1-70

Subventions

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

Auteurs

Arri Coomarasamy (A)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Hoda M Harb (HM)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Adam J Devall (AJ)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Versha Cheed (V)

Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Tracy E Roberts (TE)

Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Ilias Goranitis (I)

Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Chidubem B Ogwulu (CB)

Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Helen M Williams (HM)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Ioannis D Gallos (ID)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Abey Eapen (A)

Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Jane P Daniels (JP)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Amna Ahmed (A)

Sunderland Royal Hospital, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK.

Ruth Bender-Atik (R)

Miscarriage Association, Wakefield, UK.

Kalsang Bhatia (K)

Burnley General Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Burnley, UK.

Cecilia Bottomley (C)

University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Meenakshi Choudhary (M)

Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Fiona Crosfill (F)

Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston, UK.

Shilpa Deb (S)

Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

W Colin Duncan (WC)

Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Andrew Ewer (A)

Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Kim Hinshaw (K)

Sunderland Royal Hospital, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK.

Thomas Holland (T)

St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Feras Izzat (F)

University Hospital Coventry, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.

Jemma Johns (J)

King's College Hospital, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Mary-Ann Lumsden (MA)

Reproductive & Maternal Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Padma Manda (P)

The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.

Jane E Norman (JE)

Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Natalie Nunes (N)

West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, UK.

Caroline E Overton (CE)

St Michael's Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.

Kathiuska Kriedt (K)

University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Siobhan Quenby (S)

Biomedical Research Unit in Reproductive Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Sandhya Rao (S)

Whiston Hospital, St Helen's and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Prescot, UK.

Jackie Ross (J)

King's College Hospital, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Anupama Shahid (A)

Whipps Cross Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Martyn Underwood (M)

Princess Royal Hospital, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Telford, UK.

Nirmala Vaithilingham (N)

Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.

Linda Watkins (L)

Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Catherine Wykes (C)

East Surrey Hospital, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Redhill, UK.

Andrew W Horne (AW)

Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Davor Jurkovic (D)

University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Lee J Middleton (LJ)

Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH