Cargando…

Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND: Progesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Norman, Jane Elizabeth, Marlow, Neil, Messow, Claudia-Martina, Shennan, Andrew, Bennett, Phillip R, Thornton, Steven, Robson, Stephen C, McConnachie, Alex, Petrou, Stavros, Sebire, Neil J, Lavender, Tina, Whyte, Sonia, Norrie, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921136
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00350-0
_version_ 1783231994202685440
author Norman, Jane Elizabeth
Marlow, Neil
Messow, Claudia-Martina
Shennan, Andrew
Bennett, Phillip R
Thornton, Steven
Robson, Stephen C
McConnachie, Alex
Petrou, Stavros
Sebire, Neil J
Lavender, Tina
Whyte, Sonia
Norrie, John
author_facet Norman, Jane Elizabeth
Marlow, Neil
Messow, Claudia-Martina
Shennan, Andrew
Bennett, Phillip R
Thornton, Steven
Robson, Stephen C
McConnachie, Alex
Petrou, Stavros
Sebire, Neil J
Lavender, Tina
Whyte, Sonia
Norrie, John
author_sort Norman, Jane Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Progesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22–24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61–1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38–1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means −0·48, 95% CI −2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27). INTERPRETATION: Vaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5406617
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54066172017-05-05 Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial Norman, Jane Elizabeth Marlow, Neil Messow, Claudia-Martina Shennan, Andrew Bennett, Phillip R Thornton, Steven Robson, Stephen C McConnachie, Alex Petrou, Stavros Sebire, Neil J Lavender, Tina Whyte, Sonia Norrie, John Lancet Articles BACKGROUND: Progesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22–24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61–1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38–1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means −0·48, 95% CI −2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27). INTERPRETATION: Vaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales. Elsevier 2016-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5406617/ /pubmed/26921136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00350-0 Text en © 2016 Norman et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Articles
Norman, Jane Elizabeth
Marlow, Neil
Messow, Claudia-Martina
Shennan, Andrew
Bennett, Phillip R
Thornton, Steven
Robson, Stephen C
McConnachie, Alex
Petrou, Stavros
Sebire, Neil J
Lavender, Tina
Whyte, Sonia
Norrie, John
Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title_full Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title_fullStr Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title_full_unstemmed Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title_short Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
title_sort vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the opptimum study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921136
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00350-0
work_keys_str_mv AT normanjaneelizabeth vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT marlowneil vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT messowclaudiamartina vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT shennanandrew vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT bennettphillipr vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT thorntonsteven vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT robsonstephenc vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT mcconnachiealex vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT petroustavros vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT sebireneilj vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT lavendertina vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT whytesonia vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial
AT norriejohn vaginalprogesteroneprophylaxisforpretermbirththeopptimumstudyamulticentrerandomiseddoubleblindtrial