Search

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).)

Background: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. The recurrence rate of spontaneous preterm birth is high, and additional preventive measures are required. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of low-dose aspirin compared to placebo in the prevention of preterm birth in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth., Methods and Findings: We performed a parallel multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (the APRIL study). The study was performed in 8 tertiary and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. We included women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth of a singleton between 22 and 37 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to aspirin 80 mg daily or placebo initiated between 8 and 16 weeks of gestation and continued until 36 weeks or delivery. Randomisation was computer generated, with allocation concealment by using sequentially numbered medication containers. Participants, their healthcare providers, and researchers were blinded for treatment allocation. The primary outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neonatal outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular leukomalacia > grade 1, intraventricular hemorrhage > grade 2, necrotising enterocolitis > stage 1, retinopathy of prematurity, culture proven sepsis, or perinatal death). Analyses were performed by intention to treat. From May 31, 2016 to June 13, 2019, 406 women were randomised to aspirin (n = 204) or placebo (n = 202). A total of 387 women (81.1% of white ethnic origin, mean age 32.5 ± SD 3.8) were included in the final analysis: 194 women were allocated to aspirin and 193 to placebo. Preterm birth <37 weeks occurred in 41 (21.2%) women in the aspirin group and 49 (25.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.20, p = 0.32). In women with ≥80% medication adherence, preterm birth occurred in 24 (19.2%) versus 30 (24.8%) women (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, p = 0.29). The rate of the composite of poor neonatal outcome was 4.6% (n = 9) versus 2.6% (n = 5) (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.25, p = 0.29). Among all randomised women, serious adverse events occurred in 11 out of 204 (5.4%) women allocated to aspirin and 11 out of 202 (5.4%) women allocated to placebo. None of these serious adverse events was considered to be associated with treatment allocation. The main study limitation is the underpowered sample size due to the lower than expected preterm birth rates., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that low-dose aspirin did not significantly reduce the preterm birth rate in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. However, a modest reduction of preterm birth with aspirin cannot be ruled out. Further research is required to determine a possible beneficial effect of low-dose aspirin for women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register (NL5553, NTR5675) https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5553., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: BM reported an Investigator grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; grant no. GNT1176437); receipt of research funding from Guerbet; and is a former advisory board member at ObsEva. All other authors do not report any relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.

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 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 (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) is a major problem in obstetrics and affects an estimated 15 million pregnancies worldwide annually. A history of previous preterm birth is the strongest risk factor for preterm birth, and recurrent spontaneous preterm birth affects more than 2.5 million pregnancies each year. A recent meta-analysis showed possible benefits of the use of low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. We will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of low dose aspirin in comparison with placebo in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in a randomized clinical trial., Methods/design: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth in a singleton pregnancy (22-37 weeks of gestation) will be asked to participate in a multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Women will be randomized to low dose aspirin (80 mg once daily) or placebo, initiated from 8 to 16 weeks up to maximal 36 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure will be preterm birth, defined as birth at a gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be a composite of adverse neonatal outcome and maternal outcomes, including subgroups of prematurity, as well as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and costs from a healthcare perspective. Preterm birth will be analyzed as a group, as well as separately for spontaneous or indicated onset. Analysis will be performed by intention to treat. In total, 406 pregnant women have to be randomized to show a reduction of 35% in preterm birth from 36 to 23%. If aspirin is effective in preventing preterm birth, we expect that there will be cost savings, because of the low costs of aspirin. To evaluate this, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing preventive treatment with aspirin with placebo., Discussion: This trial will provide evidence as to whether or not low dose aspirin is (cost-) effective in reducing recurrence of spontaneous preterm birth., Trial Registration: Clinical trial registration number of the Dutch Trial Register: NTR 5675 . EudraCT-registration number: 2015-003220-31.

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.)