Progestogens for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis by drug route.

PURPOSE: Progestogen has been investigated as a preventive intervention among women with increased preterm birth risk. Our objective was to systematically review the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM), vaginal, and oral progestogens for preterm birth and neonatal death prevention. METHODS: We included articles published from January 1966 to January 2013 and found 27 randomized trials with data for Bayesian meta-analysis. RESULTS: Across all studies, only vaginal and oral routes were effective at reducing preterm births (IM risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95 % Bayesian credible interval [BCI]: 0.88-1.03; vaginal RR 0.87, 95 % BCI: 0.80-0.94; oral RR 0.64, 95 % BCI: 0.49-0.85). However, when analyses were limited to only single births all routes were effective at reducing preterm birth (IM RR 0.77, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.87; vaginal RR 0.80, 95 % BCI: 0.69-0.91; oral RR 0.66, 95 % BCI: 0.47-0.84). Only IM progestogen was effective at reducing neonatal deaths (IM RR 0.78, 95 % BCI: 0.56-0.99; vaginal RR 0.75, 95 % BCI: 0.45-1.09; oral RR 0.72, 95 % BCI: 0.09-1.74). Vaginal progestogen was effective in reducing neonatal deaths when limited to singletons births. CONCLUSIONS: All progestogen routes reduce preterm births but not neonatal deaths. Future studies are needed that directly compare progestogen delivery routes.

Progestogens for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of progestogens for prevention of preterm birth among women with prior spontaneous preterm birth, multiple gestations, preterm labor, short cervix, or other indications. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for English language articles published from January 1966 to October 2011. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We excluded publications that were not randomized controlled trials or had fewer than 20 participants, identifying 34 publications, of which 19 contained data for Bayesian meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assigned overall quality ratings based on predetermined criteria. Among women with prior preterm birth and a singleton pregnancy (five randomized controlled trials), progestogen treatment decreased the median risk of preterm birth by 22% (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.68-0.88) and neonatal death by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.27-0.98). The evidence suggests progestogen treatment does not prevent prematurity (RR 1.02, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.87-1.17) or neonatal death (RR 1.44, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.46-3.18) in multiple gestations. Limited evidence suggests progestogen treatment may prevent prematurity in women with preterm labor (RR 0.62, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.47-0.79) and short cervix (RR 0.52, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.36-0.70). Across indications, evidence about maternal, fetal, or neonatal health outcomes, other than reducing preterm birth and neonatal mortality, is inconsistent, insufficient, or absent. CONCLUSION: Progestogens prevent preterm birth when used in singleton pregnancies for women with a prior preterm birth. In contrast, evidence suggests lack of effectiveness for multiple gestations. Evidence supporting all other uses is insufficient to guide clinical care. Overall, clinicians and patients lack longer-term information to understand whether intervention has the ultimately desired outcome of preventing morbidity and promoting normal childhood development.