Interventions to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancy who are at high risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Journal
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
ISSN: 1756-1833
Titre abrégé: BMJ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8900488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 02 2022
15 02 2022
Historique:
entrez:
16
2
2022
pubmed:
17
2
2022
medline:
5
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the efficacy of bed rest, cervical cerclage (McDonald, Shirodkar, or unspecified type of cerclage), cervical pessary, fish oils or omega fatty acids, nutritional supplements (zinc), progesterone (intramuscular, oral, or vaginal), prophylactic antibiotics, prophylactic tocolytics, combinations of interventions, placebo or no treatment (control) to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. Systematic review with bayesian network meta-analysis. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials of pregnant women who are at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. No language or date restrictions were applied. Seven maternal outcomes and 11 fetal outcomes were analysed in line with published core outcomes for preterm birth research. Relative treatment effects (odds ratios and 95% credible intervals) and certainty of evidence are presented for outcomes of preterm birth <34 weeks and perinatal death. Sixty one trials (17 273 pregnant women) contributed data for the analysis of at least one outcome. For preterm birth <34 weeks (40 trials, 13 310 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was associated with fewer women with preterm birth <34 weeks (odds ratio 0.50, 95% credible interval 0.34 to 0.70, high certainty of evidence). Shirodkar cerclage showed the largest effect size (0.06, 0.00 to 0.84), but the certainty of evidence was low. 17OHPC (17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate; 0.68, 0.43 to 1.02, moderate certainty), vaginal pessary (0.65, 0.39 to 1.08, moderate certainty), and fish oil or omega 3 (0.30, 0.06 to 1.23, moderate certainty) might also reduce preterm birth <34 weeks compared with placebo or no treatment. For the fetal outcome of perinatal death (30 trials, 12 119 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was the only treatment that showed clear evidence of benefit for this outcome (0.66, 0.44 to 0.97, moderate certainty). 17OHPC (0.78, 0.50 to 1.21, moderate certainty), McDonald cerclage (0.59, 0.33 to 1.03, moderate certainty), and unspecified cerclage (0.77, 0.53 to 1.11, moderate certainty) might reduce perinatal death rates, but credible intervals could not exclude the possibility of harm. Only progesterone treatments are associated with reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with controls. Vaginal progesterone should be considered the preventative treatment of choice for women with singleton pregnancy identified to be at risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. Future randomised controlled trials should use vaginal progesterone as a comparator to identify better treatments or combination treatments. PROSPERO CRD42020169006.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35168930
doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-064547
pmc: PMC8845039
doi:
Substances chimiques
Progesterone
4G7DS2Q64Y
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e064547Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. However, members of the team involved in this study (AC, NM) were employed as part of a grant from Wellbeing of Women charity to establish the Harris Wellbeing Research Centre. Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Wellbeing of Women charity for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):641-56
pubmed: 23804508
Lancet. 2021 Mar 27;397(10280):1183-1194
pubmed: 33773630
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 14;11:CD012505
pubmed: 30480756
BMJ. 2019 May 1;365:l1346
pubmed: 31043374
PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 26;14(9):e1002390
pubmed: 28949973
N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb 29;334(9):567-72
pubmed: 8569824
Sci Rep. 2020 May 22;10(1):8508
pubmed: 32444773
BJOG. 2019 May;126(6):763-769
pubmed: 30461172
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:1-13
pubmed: 31055177
Arch Dis Child. 2018 Apr;103(4):363-370
pubmed: 29146572
Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30;29(7-8):932-44
pubmed: 20213715
BMJ. 2004 Dec 11;329(7479):1390-3
pubmed: 15591566
Lancet. 2008 Jan 5;371(9606):75-84
pubmed: 18177778
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;56(3):247-53
pubmed: 560099
BJOG. 2014 Sep;121(10):1197-208; discussion 1209
pubmed: 24899245
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127(1):49-58
pubmed: 26646133
Lancet. 2016 May 21;387(10033):2106-2116
pubmed: 26921136
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Jan;34(1):49-57
pubmed: 30895903
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Feb;42(2):148-57
pubmed: 26633738
BMJ. 2020 Nov 10;371:m3907
pubmed: 33172877
Am J Perinatol. 2020 Jan;37(2):127-136
pubmed: 31652479