Agustin Conde-Agudelo1, Roberto Romero2, Eduardo Da Fonseca3, John M O'Brien4, Elcin Cetingoz5, George W Creasy6, Sonia S Hassan1, Offer Erez7, Percy Pacora1, Kypros H Nicolaides8. 1. 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, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, MI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI. 2. 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, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, MI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Electronic address: prbchiefstaff@med.wayne.edu. 3. Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital do Servidor Publico Estadual "Francisco Morato de Oliveira" and School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turkish Red Crescent Altintepe Medical Center, Maltepe, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Center for Biomedical Research, Population Council, New York, NY. 7. 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, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, MI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel. 8. Harris Birthright Research Center for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An indirect comparison meta-analysis published in 2013 reported that both vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally efficacious for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic short cervix. The efficacy of vaginal progesterone has been challenged after publication of the OPPTIMUM study. However, this has been resolved by an individual patient-data meta-analysis (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:161-180). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cerclage in preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to March 2018); Cochrane databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal progesterone to placebo/no treatment or cerclage to no cerclage in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic cervical length <25 mm. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Updated systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone vs cerclage using placebo/no cerclage as the common comparator. The primary outcomes were preterm birth <35 weeks of gestation and perinatal mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Five trials comparing vaginal progesterone vs placebo (265 women) and 5 comparing cerclage vs no cerclage (504 women) were included. Vaginal progesterone, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the risk of preterm birth <35 and <32 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, neonatal sepsis, composite neonatal morbidity, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RRs from 0.29 to 0.68). Cerclage, compared to no cerclage, significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37, <35, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, and birthweight <1500 g (RRs from 0.64 to 0.70). Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses did not show statistically significant differences between vaginal progesterone and cerclage in the reduction of preterm birth or adverse perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally effective for preventing preterm birth and improving perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. The choice of treatment will depend on adverse events and cost-effectiveness of interventions and patient/physician's preferences. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: An indirect comparison meta-analysis published in 2013 reported that both vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally efficacious for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic short cervix. The efficacy of vaginal progesterone has been challenged after publication of the OPPTIMUM study. However, this has been resolved by an individual patient-data meta-analysis (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:161-180). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cerclage in preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to March 2018); Cochrane databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal progesterone to placebo/no treatment or cerclage to no cerclage in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic cervical length <25 mm. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Updated systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone vs cerclage using placebo/no cerclage as the common comparator. The primary outcomes were preterm birth <35 weeks of gestation and perinatal mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Five trials comparing vaginal progesterone vs placebo (265 women) and 5 comparing cerclage vs no cerclage (504 women) were included. Vaginal progesterone, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the risk of preterm birth <35 and <32 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, neonatal sepsis, composite neonatal morbidity, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RRs from 0.29 to 0.68). Cerclage, compared to no cerclage, significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37, <35, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, and birthweight <1500 g (RRs from 0.64 to 0.70). Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses did not show statistically significant differences between vaginal progesterone and cerclage in the reduction of preterm birth or adverse perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally effective for preventing preterm birth and improving perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. The choice of treatment will depend on adverse events and cost-effectiveness of interventions and patient/physician's preferences. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: E R Guzman; C Walters; C O'reilly-Green; W L Kinzler; R Waldron; J Nigam; A M Vintzileos Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Gideon Fait; Joseph Har-Toov; Ilan Gull; Joseph B Lessing; Ariel Jaffa; Igal Wolman Journal: J Clin Ultrasound Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 0.910
Authors: U B Wennerholm; B Holm; I Mattsby-Baltzer; T Nielsen; J Platz-Christensen; G Sundell; N Hosseini; H Hagberg Journal: Br J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 1997-12
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: H Honest; C A Forbes; K H Durée; G Norman; S B Duffy; A Tsourapas; T E Roberts; P M Barton; S M Jowett; C J Hyde; K S Khan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Helen Christine McNamara; Rachael Wood; James Chalmers; Neil Marlow; John Norrie; Graeme MacLennan; Gladys McPherson; Charles Boachie; Jane Elizabeth Norman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jose Galaz; Roberto Romero; Yi Xu; Derek Miller; Dustyn Levenson; Robert Para; Aneesha Varrey; Richard Hsu; Anna Tong; Sonia S Hassan; Chaur-Dong Hsu; Nardhy Gomez-Lopez Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 1.901
Authors: Hassendrini N Peiris; Roberto Romero; Kanchan Vaswani; Sarah Reed; Nardhy Gomez-Lopez; Adi L Tarca; Dereje W Gudicha; Offer Erez; Eli Maymon; Murray D Mitchell Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2019-12-29
Authors: Dereje W Gudicha; Roberto Romero; Doron Kabiri; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Percy Pacora; Offer Erez; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Eunjung Jung; Carmen Paredes; Stanley M Berry; Lami Yeo; Sonia S Hassan; Chaur-Dong Hsu; Adi L Tarca Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 8.661