Oral dydrogesterone treatment during the first trimester of pregnancy: The prevention of miscarriage study (PROMIS). A double-blind, prospectively randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial

Design, synthesis, and biological activities of novel thiophene, pyrimidine, pyrazole, pyridine, coumarin and isoxazole: Dydrogesterone derivatives as antitumor agents

On the basis of our consideration to design and to develop antitumor activities of heterocyclic compound derivatives, especially in fused ring system, we refer to the possibility of the heterocyclic extension of one of the most important steroid compounds used as a medicinal drug. The reaction of dydrogesterone with each of the malononitrile or ethylcyanoacetate containing elemental sulfur afforded thiophene derivatives 1a,b. Also, dydrogesterone was reacted with a mixture of ethylcyanoacetate–hydrazine, ethylcyanoacetae–urea, or ethylcyanoacetate–thiourea to produce pyrazole derivative 4 and pyrimidine derivatives 5a,b. Thienopyrimidine derivatives 2a–d were introduced from the reaction of thiophene derivatives 1a,b with either phenylisothiocyanate or benzoylisothioyanate. Furthermore, compounds 1a,b were directed toward the reaction with ethylcyanoacetate to produce compounds 6a,b, and the last compounds 6a,b were directed toward cyclization to obtain thienopyridine derivatives 7a,b. In addition, compounds 6a,b were subjected to react with different carbonyl compounds, such as salicylaldehyde, cyclopentanone-elemental sulfur, malonaldehyde, and acetylacetone to produce coumarin derivatives 8a,b, fused thiophene derivatives 9a,b, and pyridine derivatives 10a–d. Isooxazole derivatives 12a,b were afforded through the reaction of compounds 6a,b with hydroxylamine hydrochloride. Finally, 2-pyridone derivatives 14a,b were obtained through the reaction of compounds 6a,b with benzoylacetonitrile. Conformation structure of the synthesized compounds was established by applying IR, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and mass spectrometry, and their antitumor activity was examined. Some compounds showed promising growth inhibitory effects on the three different cell lines.

Natural killer cells in recurrent miscarriage: An overview

Recurrent Miscarriage is an early pregnancy complication which affects about 1-3 % of child-bearing couples. The mechanisms involved in the occurrence of recurrent miscarriages are not clearly understood. In the last decade Natural Killer cells have been studied in peripheral blood and uterus in order to determine if there are specific characteristics of Natural Killer cells associated with miscarriage. Different authors have described an increased number of uterine and peripheral blood Natural Killer cells in women with recurrent miscarriages compared to control women. However, its relationship with miscarriage has not been confirmed. In patients with recurrent miscarriage a lack of inhibition of decidua Natural Killer cells can be observed, which leads to a more activated state characterized by higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In peripheral blood, it has been also reported a dysfunctional cytokine production by Natural Killer cells, with an increase of interferon-γ levels and a decrease of Interleukin-4. Significant progress has been made in the last decade in understanding the biology of Natural Killer cells, including the identification of new receptors that also contribute to the activation and regulation of Natural Killer cells. In this review, we summarize the current progress in the study of Natural Killer cells in recurrent miscarriage.

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology

BACKGROUND

Progesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilized egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progesterone. Therefore, clinicians use progestogens (drugs that interact with the progesterone receptors), beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review, last published in 2013. Since publication of the 2018 update of this review, we have been advised that the Ismail 2017 study is currently the subject of an investigation by the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. We have now moved this study from 'included studies' to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification' until the outcome of the investigation is known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against recurrent miscarriage.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 July 2017) and reference lists from relevant articles, attempting to contact trial authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials (1,856 women) met the inclusion criteria. Eight of the included trials compared treatment with placebo and the remaining four trials compared progestogen administration with no treatment. The trials were a mix of multicenter and single-center trials, conducted in India, Jordan, UK and USA. In five trials women had had three or more consecutive miscarriages and in seven trials women had suffered two or more consecutive miscarriages. Routes, dosage and duration of progestogen treatment varied across the trials. The majority of trials were at low risk of bias for most domains. Ten trials (1684 women) contributed data to the analyses. The meta-analysis of all women, suggests that there may be a reduction in the number of miscarriages for women given progestogen supplementation compared to placebo/controls (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.00, 10 trials, 1684 women, moderate-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis comparing placebo-controlled versus non-placebo-controlled trials, trials of women with three or more prior miscarriages compared to women with two or more miscarriages and different routes of administration showed no clear differences between subgroups for miscarriage. None of the trials reported on any secondary maternal outcomes, including severity of morning sickness, thromboembolic events, depression, admission to a special care unit, or subsequent fertility. There was probably a slight benefit for women receiving progestogen seen in the outcome of live birth rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13, 6 trials, 1411 women, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect on the rate of preterm birth because the evidence is very low-quality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.41, 4 trials, 256 women, very low-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for women receiving progestogen for the other secondary outcomes including neonatal death, fetal genital abnormalities or stillbirth. There may be little or no difference in the rate of low birthweight and trials did not report on the secondary child outcomes of teratogenic effects or admission to a special care unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages, supplementation with progestogen therapy may reduce the rate of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe. Since publication of this new review in Issue 10, 2017, we have now moved one study (El-Refaie 2016) from included to studies awaiting classification, pending clarification about the study data.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4548 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of three studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placebo More women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I² = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I² = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by dose There were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23; women = 1503; studies = 5; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up. There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.97; women = 1345; studies = 3; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; infants = 2640; studies = 3; I² = 66%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (8%) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; women = 1919; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; infants = 2695; studies = 4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes. Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound).

Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology

BACKGROUND

Progesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilized egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progesterone. Therefore, clinicians use progestogens (drugs that interact with the progesterone receptors), beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review, last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against recurrent miscarriage.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 July 2017) and reference lists from relevant articles, attempting to contact trial authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (2556 women) met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the included trials compared treatment with placebo and the remaining four trials compared progestogen administration with no treatment. The trials were a mix of multicenter and single-center trials, conducted in Egypt, India, Jordan, UK and USA. In six trials women had had three or more consecutive miscarriages and in seven trials women had suffered two or more consecutive miscarriages. Routes, dosage and duration of progestogen treatment varied across the trials. The majority of trials were at low risk of bias for most domains. Eleven trials (2359 women) contributed data to the analyses.The meta-analysis of all women, suggests that there is probably a reduction in the number of miscarriages for women given progestogen supplementation compared to placebo/controls (average risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.92, 11 trials, 2359 women, moderate-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis comparing placebo-controlled versus non-placebo-controlled trials and different routes of administration showed no differences between subgroups for miscarriage. However, there appears to be a subgroup difference for miscarriage between women with three or more prior miscarriages compared to women with two or more miscarriages, with a more pronounced effect in women with three or more prior miscarriages. However, it should be noted that there was high heterogeneity in the subgroup of women with three or more prior miscarriages.None of the trials reported on any secondary maternal outcomes, including severity of morning sickness, thromboembolic events, depression, admission to a special care unit, or subsequent fertility.There was probably a slight benefit for women receiving progestogen seen in the outcome of live birth rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.24, 7 trials, 2086 women, moderate-quality evidence). While the rate of preterm birth is probably reduced for women receiving progestogen, this outcome was mainly driven by one trial and thus should be interpreted with great caution (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, 5 trials, 811 women, moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for women receiving progestogen for the other secondary outcomes of neonatal death or fetal genital abnormalities. A possible reduction in stillbirth was seen, but again this outcome was driven mainly by one trial and should be interpreted with caution (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, 3 trials, 1199 women). There may be little or no difference in the rate of low birthweight and trials did not report on the secondary child outcomes of teratogenic effects or admission to a special care unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages, supplementation with progestogen therapy probably reduces the rate of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4773 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of four studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placeboMore women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I2 = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I2 = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by doseThere were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.09; women = 1727; studies = 6; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.21; women = 1569; studies = 4; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; infants = 3079; studies = 4; I2 = 49%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials.For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (7%) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; women = 2143; studies = 6; I2 = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77; infants = 3134; studies = 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes.Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound).

The role of progesterone therapy in early pregnancy: from physiological role to therapeutic utility

Progesterone is a steroid hormone of essential role in reproduction. In early pregnancy, it is responsible for preparation of endometrium for implantation process and maintenance of gestational sac in uterus, also by modulation of maternal immune system. Even though, several indices has been proposed as markers of endogenous progesterone synthesis (progesterone or luteinizing hormone measurements, endometrial biopsy), none has been proved to be reliable in detecting luteal phase defect. Currently, several pharmaceutical formulations are available, but in clinical setting the non-oral formulations seems to be effective in therapy. Progesterone is effective in the treatment of patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedure, as a luteal phase support. Some studies showed also its efficacy in the treatment of threatening or recurrent miscarriage, but newer trials neglected this beneficial effect. Due to controversies regarding utility of progesterone supplementation in these conditions, further studies are needed to address this issue.

Progesterone in normal and pathological pregnancy

Progesterone is an essential hormone in the process of reproduction. It is involved in the menstrual cycle, implantation and is essential for pregnancy maintenance. It has been proposed and extensively used in the treatment of different gynecological pathologies as well as in assisted reproductive technologies and in the maintenance of pregnancy. Called "the pregnancy hormone", natural progesterone is essential before pregnancy and has a crucial role in its maintenance based on different mechanisms such as: modulation of maternal immune response and suppression of inflammatory response (the presence of progesterone and its interaction with progesterone receptors at the decidua level appears to play a major role in the maternal defense strategy), reduction of uterine contractility (adequate progesterone concentrations in myometrium are able to counteract prostaglandin stimulatory activity as well as oxytocin), improvement of utero-placental circulation and luteal phase support (it has been demonstrated that progesterone may promote the invasion of extravillous trophoblasts to the decidua by inhibiting apoptosis of extravillous trophoblasts). Once the therapeutic need of progesterone is established, the key factor is the decision of the best route to administer the hormone and the optimal dosage determination. Progesterone can be administered by many different routes, but the most utilized are oral, the vaginal and intramuscular administration. The main uses of progesterone are represented by: threatened miscarriage, recurrent miscarriage and preterm birth (in the prevention strategy, as a tocolytic agent and also in the maintenance of uterine quiescence).

A systematic review of dydrogesterone for the treatment of recurrent miscarriage

The objective of this systematic review was to assesses whether the orally acting progestagen, dydrogesterone lowers the incidence of subsequent miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage. A computerized search was performed in Medline, Embase and Ovid Medline for original reports with the product name "Duphaston" or "dydrogesterone" and limited to clinical human data. Thirteen reports of dydrogesterone treatment were identified. Two randomized trials and one non-randomized comparative trial were identified, including 509 women who fulfilled the criteria for meta-analysis. The number of subsequent miscarriages or continuing pregnancies per woman was compared in women receiving dydrogesterone compared to standard bed rest or placebo intervention. There was a 10.5% (29/275) miscarriage rate after dydrogesterone administration compared to 23.5% in control women (odds ratio for miscarriage 0.29 [confidence interval 0.13-0.65] and 13% absolute reduction in the miscarriage rate). The adverse and side effects were summarised in all 13 reports, and seemed to be minimal. Although all the predictive and confounding factors could not be controlled for, the results of this systematic review show a significant reduction of 29% in the odds for miscarriage when dydrogesterone is compared to standard care indicating a real treatment effect.

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Progesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilized egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progesterone. Therefore, progestogens have been used, beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against miscarriage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 August 2013), reference lists from relevant articles, attempting to contact authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials (2158 women) are included. The meta-analysis of all women, regardless of gravidity and number of previous miscarriages, showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of miscarriage between progestogen and placebo or no treatment groups (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.24) and no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse effect in either mother or baby.A subgroup analysis of placebo controlled trials did not find a difference in the rate of miscarriage with the use of progestogen (10 trials, 1028 women; Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50).In a subgroup analysis of four trials involving women who had recurrent miscarriages (three or more consecutive miscarriages; four trials, 225 women), progestogen treatment showed a statistically significant decrease in miscarriage rate compared to placebo or no treatment (Peto OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.72). However, these four trials were of poorer methodological quality. No statistically significant differences were found between the route of administration of progestogen (oral, intramuscular, vaginal) versus placebo or no treatment. No significant differences in the rates of preterm birth, neonatal death, or fetal genital anomalies/virilization were found between progestogen therapy versus placebo/control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the routine use of progestogen to prevent miscarriage in early to mid-pregnancy. However, there seems to be evidence of benefit in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage. Treatment for these women may be warranted given the reduced rates of miscarriage in the treatment group and the finding of no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups in rates of adverse effects suffered by either mother or baby in the available evidence. Larger trials are currently underway to inform treatment for this group of women.

Prenatal administration of progesterone for preventing preterm birth in women considered to be at risk of preterm birth

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a major complication of pregnancy associated with perinatal mortality and morbidity. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm labour has been advocated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth for women considered to be at increased risk of preterm birth and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 January 2013) and reviewed the reference list of all articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, in which progesterone was given for preventing preterm birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated trials for methodological quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (8523 women and 12,515 infants) were included. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a past history of spontaneous preterm birth Progesterone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of perinatal mortality (six studies; 1453 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.75), preterm birth less than 34 weeks (five studies; 602 women; average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69), infant birthweight less than 2500 g (four studies; 692 infants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79), use of assisted ventilation (three studies; 633 women; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90), necrotising enterocolitis (three studies; 1170 women; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89), neonatal death (six studies; 1453 women; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (three studies; 389 women; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (10 studies; 1750 women; average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and a statistically significant increase in pregnancy prolongation in weeks (one study; 148 women; mean difference (MD) 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 6.79). No differential effects in terms of route of administration, time of commencing therapy and dose of progesterone were observed for the majority of outcomes examined. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a short cervix identified on ultrasound Progesterone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of preterm birth less than 34 weeks (two studies; 438 women; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90), preterm birth at less than 28 weeks' gestation (two studies; 1115 women; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93) and increased risk of urticaria in women when compared with placebo (one study; 654 women; RR 5.03, 95% CI 1.11 to 22.78). It was not possible to assess the effect of route of progesterone administration, gestational age at commencing therapy, or total cumulative dose of medication. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a multiple pregnancy Progesterone was associated with no statistically significant differences for the reported outcomes. Progesterone versus no treatment/placebo for women following presentation with threatened preterm labour Progesterone, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of infant birthweight less than 2500 g (one study; 70 infants; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). Progesterone versus placebo for women with 'other' risk factors for preterm birth Progesterone, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of infant birthweight less than 2500 g (three studies; 482 infants; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.91).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of progesterone is associated with benefits in infant health following administration in women considered to be at increased risk of preterm birth due either to a prior preterm birth or where a short cervix has been identified on ultrasound examination. However, there is limited information available relating to longer-term infant and childhood outcomes, the assessment of which remains a priority.Further trials are required to assess the optimal timing, mode of administration and dose of administration of progesterone therapy when given to women considered to be at increased risk of early birth.

The role of progesterone in maternal and fetal medicine

Progesterone is an essential hormone in the process of reproduction. It has been extensively studied in the treatment of different gynecological pathologies, as a contraceptive and in assisted reproductive technologies. However, the use of progesterone in the pathophysiology of pregnancy remains controversial. Progesterone, and its synthetic form 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17 OHP-C), offer an effective intervention when the continuation of pregnancy is at risk from immunological factors, luteinic and neuroendocrine deficiencies, and myometrial hypercontractility. Progesterone has been successfully used as prophylaxis in the prevention of spontaneous miscarriage, with treatment beginning from the first trimester of pregnancy. There is substantial evidence, too, to indicate that women with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage may benefit from the immunomodulatory properties of progesterone in early pregnancy. The use of progesterone and 17 OHP-C has been extensively studied in the prevention of preterm birth in a variety of settings. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in singleton pregnancies between 19 and 24 weeks' gestation has been deemed the best way to identify women (approximately 2% of the pregnant population) who would benefit from prophylactic progesterone treatment for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. This paper reviews the evidence for the safety and efficacy of the use of progesterone in each of these indications.

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Progesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilised egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progesterone. Therefore, progestogens have been used, beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against miscarriage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (1980 to June 2006), CINAHL (1982 to June 2006), NHMRC Clinical Trials Register (June 2006) and Meta-Register (June 2006). We searched references from relevant articles, attempting to contact authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (2118 women) are included. The meta-analysis of all women, regardless of gravidity and number of previous miscarriages, showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of miscarriage between progestogen and placebo or no treatment groups (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.24) and no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse effect in either mother or baby. In a subgroup analysis of three trials involving women who had recurrent miscarriages (three or more consecutive miscarriages), progestogen treatment showed a statistically significant decrease in miscarriage rate compared to placebo or no treatment (Peto OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70). No statistically significant differences were found between the route of administration of progestogen (oral, intramuscular, vaginal) versus placebo or no treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the routine use of progestogen to prevent miscarriage in early to mid-pregnancy. However, there seems to be evidence of benefit in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage. Treatment for these women may be warranted given the reduced rates of miscarriage in the treatment group and the finding of no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups in rates of adverse effects suffered by either mother or baby in the available evidence. Larger trials are currently underway to inform treatment for this group of women.

Long-term use of progestogens--getting the balance right: molecular biology and the endometrium

The role of progestins in long-term treatment has recently been under scrutiny, in particular as their effects on organs other than the endometrium, such as the breast or the cardiovascular system, could give rise to undesirable reactions. The use of progestins in hormone replacement therapy has highlighted the importance of choice of progestin. Insights into the molecular biology of normal processes in the endometrium can help to find accurate markers for progestin effects and help select progestins with a better benefit-risk profile. Such insight can also lead to a better understanding of the etiology of menstrual and fertility disorders and ultimately to new therapeutic approaches.

Prenatal administration of progesterone for preventing preterm birth

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is the major complication of pregnancy associated with perinatal mortality and morbidity and occurs in up to 6% to 10% of all births. Administration of progesterone for the prevention of preterm labour has been advocated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration during pregnancy in the prevention of preterm birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (March 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1965 to January 2005), EMBASE (1988 to August 2004), and Current Contents (1997 to August 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, in which progesterone was given by any route for preventing preterm birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group were used. Evaluation of methodological quality and trial data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Results are presented using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

For all women administered progesterone, there was a reduction in the risk of preterm birth less than 37 weeks (six studies, 988 participants, relative risk (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.79) and preterm birth less than 34 weeks (one study, 142 participants, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.64). Infants born to mothers administered progesterone were less likely to have birthweight less than 2500 grams (four studies, 763 infants, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81) or intraventricular haemorrhage (one study, 458 infants, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82). There was no difference in perinatal death between women administered progesterone and those administered placebo (five studies, 921 participants, RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19). There were no other differences reported for maternal or neonatal outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular progesterone is associated with a reduction in the risk of preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation, and infant birthweight less than 2500 grams. However, other important maternal and infant outcomes have been poorly reported to date, with most outcomes reported from a single trial only (Meis 2003). It is unclear if the prolongation of gestation translates into improved maternal and longer-term infant health outcomes. Similarly, information regarding the potential harms of progesterone therapy to prevent preterm birth is limited. Further information is required about the use of vaginal progesterone in the prevention of preterm birth.