Search

Introduction: Currently, the majority of women worldwide with threatened preterm birth are treated with tocolytics. Although tocolytics can effectively delay birth for 48 hours, no tocolytic drug has convincingly been shown to improve neonatal outcomes and effects on long-term child development are unknown. The aim of this follow-up study of a placebo controlled randomised trial is to investigate the long-term effects of atosiban administration in case of threatened preterm birth on child's neurodevelopment and behaviour development, overall health and mortality., Methods and Analysis: This protocol concerns a follow-up study of the multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled APOSTEL 8 trial (NL61439.018.17, EudraCT-number 2017-001007-72). In this trial, women with threatened preterm birth (between 30 and 34 weeks of gestation) defined as uterine contractions with (1) a cervical length of <15 mm or (2) a cervical length of 15-30 mm and a positive fibronectin test or (3) in centres where cervical length measurement is not part of the local protocol: a positive fibronectin test or Actim-Partus test or (4) ruptured membranes, are randomised to atosiban or placebo for 48 hours. The primary outcome is a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Children born to mothers who participated in the APOSTEL 8 study (n=760) will be eligible for follow-up at 4 years of corrected age and assessed using four parent-reported questionnaires. Primary outcomes are neurodevelopment and behaviour problems. Secondary outcomes are on child growth and general health. All outcomes will be compared between the atosiban and placebo group with OR and corresponding 95% CI. Analyses will be performed using the intention-to-treat approach., Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam UMC confirmed that de Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (Dutch WMO-law) did not apply to our study (W21&#95;386 # 21.431). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with stakeholders and participants. This protocol is published before analysis of the results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Evidence for progestogen maintenance therapy after an episode of preterm labour (PTL) is contradictory., Objectives: To assess effectiveness of progestogen maintenance therapy after an episode of PTL., Search Strategy: An electronic search in Central Cochrane, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and clinical trial databases was performed., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating women between 16 +0 and 37 +0  weeks of gestation with an episode of PTL who were treated with progestogen maintenance therapy compared with a control group., Data Collection and Analysis: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The primary outcome was latency time in days. Secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes are consistent with the core outcome set for preterm birth studies. Studies were extensively assessed for data trustworthiness (integrity) and risk of bias., Main Results: Thirteen RCT (1722 women) were included. Progestogen maintenance therapy demonstrated a longer latency time of 4.32 days compared with controls (mean difference [MD] 4.32, 95% CI 0.40-8.24) and neonates were born with a higher birthweight (MD 124.25 g, 95% CI 8.99-239.51). No differences were found for other perinatal outcomes. However, when analysing studies with low risk of bias only (five RCT, 591 women), a significantly longer latency time could not be shown (MD 2.44 days; 95% CI -4.55 to 9.42)., Conclusions: Progestogen maintenance therapy after PTL might have a modest effect on prolongation of latency time. When analysing low risk of bias studies only, this effect was not demonstrated. Validation through further research, preferably by an individual patient data meta-analysis is highly recommended., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Worldwide, nifedipine and atosiban are the two most commonly used tocolytic agents for the treatment of threatened preterm birth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nifedipine and atosiban in an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA)., Methods: We investigated the occurrence of adverse neonatal outcomes in women with threatened preterm birth by performing an IPDMA, and sought to identify possible subgroups in which one treatment may be preferred. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for trials comparing nifedipine and atosiban for treatment of threatened preterm birth between 24 0/7 and 34 0/7 weeks' gestational age. Primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidities including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, necrotising enterocolitis, and sepsis. Secondary outcomes included NICU admission, prolongation of pregnancy and GA at delivery. For studies that did not have the original databases available, metadata was used. This led to a two-stage meta-analysis that combined individual participant data with aggregate metadata., Results: We detected four studies (N = 791 women), of which two provided individual participant data (N = 650 women). The composite neonatal outcome occurred in 58/364 (16%) after nifedipine versus 69/359 (19%) after atosiban (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.47-1.23). Perinatal death occurred in 14/392 (3.6%) after nifedipine versus 7/380 (1.8%) after atosiban (OR 2.0, 95%CI 0.80-5.1). Nifedipine results in longer prolongation of pregnancy, with a 18 days to delivery compared with 10 days for atosiban (HR 0.83 (96% CI 0.69-0.99)). NICU admission occurred less often after nifedipine (46%) than after atosiban (59%), (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.75). The sensitivity analysis revealed no difference in prolongation of pregnancy for 48 hours (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73-1.4) or 7 days (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.85-5.8) between nifedipine and atosiban. There was a non-significant higher neonatal mortality in the nifedipine-exposed group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60-3.4)., Conclusions: In this IPDMA, we found no differences in composite outcome between nifedipine and atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth. However, the non-significant higher mortality after administering nifedipine warrants further investigation of the use of nifedipine as a tocolytic drug., Study Registration: We conducted this study according to a prospectively prepared protocol, registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under CRD42016024244., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In women with preterm ruptured membranes and contractions, the administration of tocolysis is controversial. This study compares tocolysis with no tocolysis in women with threatened preterm birth and ruptured membranes., Objective: To compare tocolysis with no tocolysis in women with threatened preterm birth and ruptured membranes., Study Design: Data from the APOSTEL III RCT was combined with data from the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin. In the APOSTEL III trial, women with threatened preterm birth were randomized to atosiban or nifedipine. Patient data from Ireland were obtained from a cohort of women with threatened preterm birth with ruptured membranes. The Irish women received no tocolytic treatment. Only women with ruptured membranes and contractions were selected. We studied women with singleton or twin pregnancies and a gestational age between 25 +0 and 33 +6 weeks. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparable groups. Primary outcome was a composite adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome, as well as neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, gestational age at delivery, prolongation of pregnancy and mode of delivery., Results: 153 women from the Apostel III trial were compared with 51 eligible women of the Irish cohort. We could match 46 women who received tocolysis and 46 women who received no tocolysis. All women had ruptured membranes. Maternal age, BMI, parity and gestational age at study entry were comparable between the groups after matching. There were no statistically significant differences in neonatal composite outcome (9.6 % in the tocolysis group versus 18 % in the control group, OR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.13-1.63). We found a lower incidence of NICU admission in the tocolysis group (63 %) than in the control group (94 %; OR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.03-0.41), which could be explained by differences in national admission policies. There were no statistically significant differences between tocolysis and no tocolysis in any of the other outcomes including sepsis, gestational age at delivery and time to delivery., Conclusion: In this propensity score analysis of women with threatened preterm birth and ruptured membranes, tocolytic therapy did not alter composite adverse neonatal outcome or time to delivery., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the long-term effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome at age 2.5-5.5 years., Design: The APOSTEL III trial was a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in 503 women with threatened preterm birth. Neonatal outcomes did not differ between both treatment arms, except for a higher incidence of intubation in the atosiban group., Methods: Parents were asked to complete four questionnaires regarding neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour problems and general health., Main Outcome Measures: The main long-term outcome measure was a composite of abnormal development at the age of 2.5-5.5 years., Results: Of the 426 women eligible for follow-up, 196 (46%) parents returned the questionnaires for 115 children in the nifedipine group and 110 children in the atosiban group. Abnormal development occurred in 32 children (30%) in the nifedipine group and in 38 children (38%) in the atosiban group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.34). The separate outcomes for neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour, and general health showed no significant differences between the groups. Sensitivity analysis for all children of the APOSTEL III trial, including a comparison of deceased children, resulted in a higher rate of healthy survival in the nifedipine group (64 versus 54%), but there was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (5.4 versus 2.7%). There were no significant subgroup effects., Conclusion: Outcomes on broad child neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour and general health were comparable in both groups. Neither nifedipine nor atosiban can be considered as the preferred treatment for women with threatened preterm birth., Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine- and atosiban-exposed children had comparable long-term outcomes, including neurodevelopment, executive function and behaviour., (© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Introduction: Preterm birth complicates >15 million pregnancies annually worldwide. In many countries, women who present with signs of preterm labour are treated with tocolytics for 48 hours. Although this delays birth, it has never been shown to improve neonatal outcome. In 2015, the WHO stated that the use of tocolytics should be reconsidered and that large placebo-controlled studies to evaluate the effectiveness of tocolytics are urgently needed., Methods and Analysis: We designed an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Women with threatened preterm birth (gestational age 30-34 weeks), defined as uterine contractions with (1) a cervical length of < 15 mm or (2) a cervical length of 15-30 mm and a positive fibronectin test or (3) in centres where cervical length measurement is not part of the local protocol: a positive fibronectin test or insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (Actim-Partus test) or (4) ruptured membranes, will be randomly allocated to treatment with atosiban or placebo for 48 hours. The primary outcome is a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Analysis will be by intention to treat. A sample size of 1514 participants (757 per group) will detect a reduction in adverse neonatal outcome from 10% to 6% (alpha 0.05, beta 0.2). A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location AMC, as well as the REC's in Dublin and the UK. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Participants will be informed about the results., Trial Registration Number: Nederlands Trial Register (Trial NL6469)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JT received a number of lectures and medical advisory fees from Ferring pharmaceuticals between 2000 and 2016., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth., Design: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study)., Setting: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium., Population: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban., Methods: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses., Main Outcome Measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes., Results: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group., Conclusion: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation., Tweetable Abstract: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban., (© 2019 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: Brain injury in neonates born prematurely is associated strongly with poor neurodevelopmental outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth can reduce the incidence of overall brain injury in neonates born prematurely., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the APOSTEL-III trial (Dutch Clinical Trial Registry, no. NTR2947), a randomized clinical trial in which women with threatened preterm labor between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation were allocated to treatment with nifedipine or atosiban. In this secondary analysis, women delivered at ≤ 32 weeks of gestational age in the two main contributing centers were included. Primary outcome was the presence of neonatal brain injury, which was defined as presence of abnormalities on ultrasound investigation and classified into mild and severe. To evaluate type and severity of brain injury, all neonatal ultrasounds performed during neonatal intensive and medium care admission were analyzed. To test the robustness of our results, a sensitivity analysis was performed assessing differences in baseline or known risk factors for brain injury., Results: A total of 117 neonates (from 102 women) were studied, of which 51 had been exposed to nifedipine and 66 to atosiban. Brain injury was observed in 22 (43.1%) neonates in the nifedipine group compared with 37 (56.1%) in the atosiban group (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-1.24). Presence of mild brain injury was comparable between the nifedipine (33.3%) and atosiban (48.5%) groups (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25-1.13). Severe brain injury was also comparable between the groups, observed in 9.8% of neonates in the nifedipine vs 7.6% of those in the atosiban group (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.36-4.85). Intraventricular hemorrhage (≥ Grade I) was the most frequently seen ultrasound abnormality, observed in 18 (35.3%) neonates in the nifedipine group vs 25 (37.9%) in the atosiban group (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.42-1.91). The sensitivity analysis, with adjustment for maternal age and gestational age at randomization, showed no statistical difference between the groups for presence of brain injury (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27-1.27)., Conclusion: In children born before 32 weeks of gestation after the use of tocolytics, the prevalence of brain injury was high. No significant differences were found with respect to overall brain injury between neonates exposed to nifedipine and those exposed to atosiban. However, as this study was a secondary analysis of the APOSTEL III trial, it was underpowered for brain injury. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in developed countries. Whether continued tocolysis after 48 hours of rescue tocolysis improves neonatal outcome is unproven., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA)., Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour., Selection Criteria: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7)  weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed., Main Results: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01)., Conclusion: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice., Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome or pregnancy prolongation., (© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: Preterm birth is the most common cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Around one third of preterm deliveries starts with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). The aim of this trial was to study the effect of prolonged tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo in women with PPROM on perinatal outcome and prolongation of pregnancy., Study Design: The Apostel IV was a nationwide multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial. We included women with PPROM without contractions between 24(+0) and 33(+6) weeks of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated to daily 80mg nifedipine or placebo, until the start of labor, with a maximum of 18 days. The primary outcome measure was a composite of poor neonatal outcome, including perinatal death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular leukomalacia>grade 1, intraventricular hemorrhage>grade 2, necrotizing enterocolitis>stage 1 and culture proven sepsis. Secondary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and prolongation of pregnancy. Analysis was by intention to treat. To detect a reduction of poor neonatal outcome from 30% to 10%, 120 women needed to be randomized., Trial Registry: NTR 3363., Results: Between October 2012 and December 2014 we randomized 25 women to nifedipine and 25 women to placebo. Due to slow recruitment the study was stopped prematurely. The median gestational age at randomization was 29.9 weeks (IQR 27.7-31.3) in the nifedipine group and 27.0 weeks (IQR 24.7-29.9) in the placebo group. Other baseline characteristics were comparable. The adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 9 neonates (33.3%) in the nifedipine group and 9 neonates (32.1%) in the placebo group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.49-2.2). Two perinatal deaths occurred, both in the nifedipine group. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia was seen less frequently in the nifedipine group (0% versus 17.9%; p=0.03). Prolongation of pregnancy did not differ between the nifedipine and placebo group (median 11 versus 8 days, HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.58-1.79)., Conclusion: This randomized trial did not show a beneficial effect of prolonged tocolysis on neonatal outcomes or prolongation of pregnancy in women with PPROM without contractions. However, since results are based on a small sample size, a difference in effectiveness cannot be excluded., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate long-term effects of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine on neurodevelopmental outcome of the infant., Design, Setting and Population: Follow up of infants of women who participated in a multicentre randomised controlled trial on maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo., Methods: Two years after the APOSTEL II trial on maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo, we asked participants to complete the Ages and Stages Questionnaire., Main Outcome Measures: Infant development was measured in five domains. Developmental delay was defined as a score of ≤1 SD in one or more developmental domains. We performed exploratory subgroup analysis in women with preterm prolonged rupture of the membranes, and in women with a cervical length <10 mm at study entry., Results: Of the 276 women eligible for follow up, 135 (52.5%) returned the questionnaire, encompassing data of 170 infants. At 2 years of age, infants of women with nifedipine maintenance tocolysis compared with placebo had a higher overall incidence of fine motor problems (22.2 versus 7.6%, OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.29-9.14, P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of poor problem-solving (21.1 versus 29.1%, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.95, P = 0.04)., Conclusions: This follow-up study revealed no clear benefit of nifedipine maintenance tocolysis at 2 years of age. As short-term adverse perinatal outcome was not reduced in the original APOSTEL II trial, we conclude that maintenance tocolysis does not appear to be beneficial at this time., Tweetable Abstract: No clear benefit of nifedipine maintenance tocolysis in preterm labour on 2-year infant outcome., (© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: In women with threatened preterm birth, delay of delivery by 48 h allows antenatal corticosteroids to improve neonatal outcomes. For this reason, tocolytics are often administered for 48 h; however, there is no consensus about which drug results in the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. In the APOSTEL III trial we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine and the oxytocin inhibitor atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth., Methods: We did this multicentre, randomised controlled trial in ten tertiary and nine teaching hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Women with threatened preterm birth (gestational age 25-34 weeks) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral nifedipine or intravenous atosiban for 48 h. An independent data manager used a web-based computerised programme to randomly assign women in permuted block sizes of four, with groups stratified by centre. Clinicians, outcome assessors, and women were not masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes, which included perinatal mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, and necrotising enterocolitis. Analysis was done in all women and babies with follow-up data. The study is registered at the Dutch Clinical Trial Registry, number NTR2947., Findings: Between July 6, 2011, and July 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 254 women to nifedipine and 256 to atosiban. Primary outcome data were available for 248 women and 297 babies in the nifedipine group and 255 women and 294 babies in the atosiban group. The primary outcome occurred in 42 babies (14%) in the nifedipine group and in 45 (15%) in the atosiban group (relative risk [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·61-1·37). 16 (5%) babies died in the nifedipine group and seven (2%) died in the atosiban group (RR 2·20, 95% CI 0·91-5·33); all deaths were deemed unlikely to be related to the study drug. Maternal adverse events did not differ between groups., Interpretation: In women with threatened preterm birth, 48 h of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban results in similar perinatal outcomes. Future clinical research should focus on large placebo-controlled trials, powered for perinatal outcomes., Funding: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development)., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate whether tocolysis with nifedipine can be omitted in women with symptoms of preterm labor, a shortened cervix, and negative fetal fibronectin test., Study Design: A randomized noninferiority trial was performed in all Dutch perinatal centers. Women with symptoms of preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks, intact membranes, cervical length between 10 and 30 mm, and negative fibronectin test were randomly allocated to nifedipine (80 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was delivery within 7 days. Secondary outcomes were severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. We also followed all eligible nonrandomized women., Results: We allocated 37 women to nifedipine and 36 women to placebo. In the nifedipine group, three women (8.1%) delivered within 7 days, compared with one woman (2.8%) in the placebo group (difference -5.3%; one-sided 95% confidence limit 4.5%). Median gestational age at delivery were respectively 37 + 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 34 + 6 to 38 + 5) and 38 + 2 (IQR 37 + 0 to 39 + 6) weeks (p = 0.008). In the nifedipine group, three pregnancies (8.1%) had a poor outcome; there were no poor outcomes in the placebo group. We observed similar trends in eligible nonrandomized women., Conclusion: In symptomatic women with preterm labor, a shortened cervix, and negative fibronectin test, placebo treatment is not inferior to tocolysis with nifedipine., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Introduction: The APOSTEL-II trial was a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial, assessing the effectiveness of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine. The trial showed maintenance tocolysis not to have an effect on perinatal outcome. Objective of the current study is to evaluate the effect of a negative trial on the length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor., Materials and Methods: We evaluated length of hospital admission of all patients admitted with threatened preterm labor with a gestational age <32 weeks in 8 perinatal centers that participated in the APOSTEL-II trial. We studied only the first admission with threatened preterm labor, readmissions were excluded. We distinguished between the period before, the period during and the period after the trial. In a subgroup analysis, we differentiated for the group of women who delivered and for the group of women who did not deliver during the initial admission., Results: The mean length of hospital admission was 9.3 days before the start of the trial, 8.4 days during the recruitment period and 8.1 days after the trial was completed. The difference in mean length of hospital admission before and during the recruitment period was significantly different (p<001)., Comments: The length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor is found to be reduced during the recruitment period of the APOSTEL-II trial. This shows that the conduct of a randomized controlled trial itself has the potential to change daily practice., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In threatened preterm labor, maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine, after an initial course of tocolysis and corticosteroids for 48 hours, may improve perinatal outcome., Objective: To determine whether maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine will reduce adverse perinatal outcomes due to premature birth., Design, Setting, and Participants: APOSTEL-II (Assessment of Perinatal Outcome with Sustained Tocolysis in Early Labor) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in 11 perinatal units including all tertiary centers in The Netherlands. From June 2008 to February 2010, women with threatened preterm labor between 26 weeks (plus 0 days) and 32 weeks (plus 2 days) gestation, who had not delivered after 48 hours of tocolysis and a completed course of corticosteroids, were enrolled. Surviving infants were followed up until 6 months after birth (ended August 2010)., Intervention: Randomization assigned 406 women to maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine orally (80 mg/d; n = 201) or placebo (n = 205) for 12 days. Assigned treatment was masked from investigators, participants, clinicians, and research nurses., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes (perinatal death, chronic lung disease, neonatal sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage >grade 2, periventricular leukomalacia >grade 1, or necrotizing enterocolitis). Analyses were completed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: Mean (SD) gestational age at randomization was 29.2 (1.7) weeks for both groups. Adverse perinatal outcome was not significantly different between groups: 11.9% (24/201; 95% CI, 7.5%-16.4%) for nifedipine vs 13.7% (28/205; 95% CI, 9.0%-18.4%) for placebo (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with threatened preterm labor, nifedipine-maintained tocolysis did not result in a statistically significant reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes when compared with placebo. Although the lower than anticipated rate of adverse perinatal outcomes in the control group indicates that a benefit of nifedipine cannot completely be excluded, its use for maintenance tocolysis does not appear beneficial at this time., Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1336.

Objective: To compare the long-term effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome at age 2.5-5.5 years.Design: The APOSTEL III trial was a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in 503 women with threatened preterm birth. Neonatal outcomes did not differ between both treatment arms, except for a higher incidence of intubation in the atosiban group.Methods: Parents were asked to complete four questionnaires regarding neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour problems and general health.Main Outcome Measures: The main long-term outcome measure was a composite of abnormal development at the age of 2.5-5.5 years.Results: Of the 426 women eligible for follow-up, 196 (46%) parents returned the questionnaires for 115 children in the nifedipine group and 110 children in the atosiban group. Abnormal development occurred in 32 children (30%) in the nifedipine group and in 38 children (38%) in the atosiban group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.34). The separate outcomes for neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour, and general health showed no significant differences between the groups. Sensitivity analysis for all children of the APOSTEL III trial, including a comparison of deceased children, resulted in a higher rate of healthy survival in the nifedipine group (64 versus 54%), but there was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (5.4 versus 2.7%). There were no significant subgroup effects.Conclusion: Outcomes on broad child neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour and general health were comparable in both groups. Neither nifedipine nor atosiban can be considered as the preferred treatment for women with threatened preterm birth.Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine- and atosiban-exposed children had comparable long-term outcomes, including neurodevelopment, executive function and behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth.Design: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study).Setting: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium.Population: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban.Methods: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses.Main Outcome Measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes.Results: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group.Conclusion: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation.Tweetable Abstract: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in developed countries. Whether continued tocolysis after 48 hours of rescue tocolysis improves neonatal outcome is unproven.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour.Selection Criteria: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7)  weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment.Data Collection and Analysis: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed.Main Results: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01).Conclusion: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice.Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome or pregnancy prolongation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate long-term effects of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine on neurodevelopmental outcome of the infant.Design, Setting and Population: Follow up of infants of women who participated in a multicentre randomised controlled trial on maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo.Methods: Two years after the APOSTEL II trial on maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo, we asked participants to complete the Ages and Stages Questionnaire.Main Outcome Measures: Infant development was measured in five domains. Developmental delay was defined as a score of ≤1 SD in one or more developmental domains. We performed exploratory subgroup analysis in women with preterm prolonged rupture of the membranes, and in women with a cervical length <10 mm at study entry.Results: Of the 276 women eligible for follow up, 135 (52.5%) returned the questionnaire, encompassing data of 170 infants. At 2 years of age, infants of women with nifedipine maintenance tocolysis compared with placebo had a higher overall incidence of fine motor problems (22.2 versus 7.6%, OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.29-9.14, P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of poor problem-solving (21.1 versus 29.1%, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.95, P = 0.04).Conclusions: This follow-up study revealed no clear benefit of nifedipine maintenance tocolysis at 2 years of age. As short-term adverse perinatal outcome was not reduced in the original APOSTEL II trial, we conclude that maintenance tocolysis does not appear to be beneficial at this time.Tweetable Abstract: No clear benefit of nifedipine maintenance tocolysis in preterm labour on 2-year infant outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]