Suscribirse

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.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

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


Esquema


 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  Publicado por Elsevier Masson SAS.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 227 - N° 3

P. 440 - septembre 2022 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • 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
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • The amniotic fluid index and oligohydramnios: a deeper dive into the shallow end
  • Joseph R. Wax, Michael G. Pinette

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.

¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.