Accounting for treatment by center interaction in sample size determinations and the use of surrogate outcomes in the pessary for the prevention of preterm birth trial: a simulation study

Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB), defined as birth prior to 37 weeks of gestation, occurs in ten percent of all pregnancies. PTB is responsible for more than half of neonatal and infant mortalities and morbidities. Because cervical insufficiency is a common cause of PTB, one possible preventive strategy involves insertion of a cervical pessary to support the cervix. Several published studies have compared the use of pessary with different management options and obtained questionable results. This highlights the need for an up-to-date systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancies and risk factors for cervical insufficiency compared to no treatment, vaginal progesterone, cervical cerclage or bedrest.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 22 September 2021. We also searched the reference lists of included studies for additional records.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cervical pessary with no treatment, vaginal progesterone, cervical cerclage or bedrest for preventing PTB. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. Our primary outcome was delivery before 34 weeks' gestation. Our secondary outcomes were 1. delivery before 37 weeks' gestation, 2. maternal mortality, 3. maternal infection or inflammation, 4. preterm prelabour rupture of membranes, 5. harm to woman from the intervention, 6. maternal medications, 7. discontinuation of the intervention, 8. maternal satisfaction, 9. neonatal/paediatric care unit admission, 10. fetal/infant mortality, 11. neonatal sepsis, 12. gestational age at birth, 13. harm to offspring from the intervention 14. birthweight, 15. early neurodevelopmental morbidity, 15. late neurodevelopmental morbidity, 16. gastrointestinal morbidity and 17. respiratory morbidity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness based on criteria developed by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group, extracted data, checked for accuracy and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs (2983 participants). We included five RCTs (1830 women) in the comparison cervical pessary versus no treatment, three RCTs (1126 pregnant women) in the comparison cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone, and one study (13 participants) in the comparison cervical pessary versus cervical cerclage. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate due to inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity), imprecision (few events and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) consistent with possible benefit and harm), and risk of performance and detection bias. Cervical pessary versus no treatment Cervical pessary compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of delivery before 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.55; 5 studies, 1830 women; low-certainty evidence) or before 37 weeks (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05; 5 studies, 1830 women; low-certainty evidence). However, these results should be viewed with caution because the 95% CIs cross the line of no effect. Cervical pessary compared with no treatment probably has little or no effect on the risk of maternal infection or inflammation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 2 studies, 1032 women; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear if cervical pessary compared with no treatment has an effect on neonatal/paediatric care unit admission (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.59; 3 studies, 1332 infants; low-certainty evidence) or fetal/neonatal mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.48; 5 studies, 1830 infants; low-certainty evidence) because the 95% CIs are compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both appreciable benefit and harm. Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone Cervical pessary may reduce the risk of delivery before 34 weeks (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 3 studies, 1126 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or before 37 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 3 studies, 1126 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the results because the 95% CI crosses the line of no effect. The intervention probably has little or no effect on maternal infection or inflammation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 2 studies, 265 women; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear if cervical pessary compared with vaginal progesterone has an effect on the risk of neonatal/paediatric care unit admission (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence) or fetal/neonatal mortality (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.70; 2 studies; 265 infants; low-certainty evidence) because the 95% CIs are compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both appreciable benefit and harm. Cervical pessary versus cervical cerclage Only one very small study of 13 pregnant women contributed data to this comparison; the results were unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with a singleton pregnancy, cervical pessary compared with no treatment or vaginal progesterone may reduce the risk of delivery before 34 weeks or 37 weeks, although these results should be viewed with caution due to uncertainty around the effect estimates. There is insufficient evidence with regard to the effect of cervical pessary compared with cervical cerclage on PTB. Due to low certainty-evidence in many of the prespecified outcomes and non-reporting of several other outcomes of interest for this review, there is a need for further robust RCTs that use standardised terminology for maternal and offspring outcomes. Future trials should take place in a range of settings to improve generalisability of the evidence. Further research should concentrate on comparisons of cervical pessary versus cervical cerclage and bed rest. Investigation of different phenotypes of PTB may be relevant.

Is the Arabin Pessary really useful in preventing preterm birth? A review of literature

The aim of this review is to describe the state of the art in the use of Arabin Pessary for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB). We conducted a review of the literature in order to collect relevant studies concerning the efficacy of Arabin Pessary in preventing preterm birth, also considering it in addition or in comparison with other methods such as cervical cerclage or vaginal progesterone and in both singleton and twin pregnancy. Despite the large number of studies available there is not a clear consensus about the superiority of one of this methods over the others. In addition to this, although Arabin Pessary is widely used in clinical practice, no guidelines for management and use of cervical pessary during pregnancy have been assessed.

Controversies about the Secondary Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth

Preterm birth is one of the major global health problems and part of the Millennium Development goals because of the associated high number of perinatal or neonatal mortality and long-term risks of neurodevelopmental and metabolic diseases. Transvaginal sonography has meanwhile been established as a screening tool for spontaneous preterm birth despite its relatively low sensitivity when considering only the cervical length. Vaginal progesterone has been shown to reduce prematurity rates below 34 weeks in a screening population of singleton pregnancies. Up to now, no positive long-term effect could be demonstrated after 2 years. It seems to have no benefit to prolong pregnancies after a period of preterm contractions and in risk patients without cervical shortening. Meta-analyses still demonstrate conflicting results dependent on quality criteria used for selection. A cerclage is only indicated in singleton pregnancies with previous spontaneous preterm birth and a combined cervical shortening in the current pregnancy. Nevertheless, the short- and long-term outcome has never been evaluated, whereas maternal complications may be increased. There is no evidence for a prophylactic cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies even in cases with cervical shortening. Emergency cerclage remains an indication after individual counseling. The effect of a cervical pessary in singleton pregnancy seems to be more pronounced in studies where a few investigators with increasing experience have treated and followed the patients at risk for preterm birth. Mainly in twin pregnancies, pessary treatment seems to be promising compared to other treatment options of secondary prevention when the therapy is started at early stages of precocious cervical ripening. At present, several international trials with the goal to reduce global rates of prematurity are in progress which will hopefully allow to specify the indications and methods of intervention for certain subgroups. When trials are summarized, prospective meta-analyses carry a lower risk of bias than the meanwhile uncontrolled magnitude of retrospective meta-analyses with conflicting results.