BackgroundPreterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce PTB and adverse neonatal outcomes. MethodsSystematic review of randomised trials comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control, or with each other, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. We identified published and unpublished trials that completed primary data collection before July 30, 2016 (12 months before data collection began) by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, and relevant trial registers between inception and July 30, 2019. Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediately-threatened preterm birth were excluded. Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials. Outcomes included preterm birth, early preterm birth, and mid-trimester birth. Adverse neonatal sequelae associated with early births were assessed using a composite of serious neonatal complications, and individually. Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually. Individual participant data were checked and risk of bias assessed independently by two researchers. Primary meta-analyses used one-stage generalised linear mixed models that incorporated random effects to allow for heterogeneity across trials. FindingsInitial searches identified 47 eligible trials. Individual participant data were available for 30 of these trials. An additional trial was later included in a targeted update. Data were therefore available from a total of 31 trials (11,644 women and 16,185 offspring). Trials in singleton pregnancies included mostly women with previous spontaneous preterm birth or short cervix. Preterm birth before 34 weeks was reduced in such women who received vaginal progesterone (nine trials, 769 women; relative risk [RR] 0•78, 95% CI 0•68-0•90), 17-OHPC (five trials, 3,053 women; 0•83, 0•68-1•01), and oral progesterone (two trials, 183 women; 0•60, 0•41-0•90). Results for other birth and neonatal outcomes were consistently favourable, but less certain. A possible increase in maternal complications was suggested, but this was uncertain. We identified no consistent evidence of treatment interaction with any participant characteristics examined, although analyses within subpopulations questioned efficacy in women who did not have a short cervix. Trials in multifetal pregnancies mostly included women without additional risk factors. For twins, vaginal progesterone did not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks (eight trials, 2046 women: RR 1•01, 95% CI 0•84-1•20) nor did 17-OHPC for twins or triplets (eight trials, 2253 women: 1•04, 0•92-1•18). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was increased with 17-OHPC exposure in multifetal gestations (rupture <34 weeks RR 1•59, 95% CI 1•15-2•22), but we found no consistent evidence of benefit or harm for other outcomes with either vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC InterpretationVaginal progesterone and 17...
Background: Preterm birth is the major cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic vaginal progesterone on decreasing preterm birth rate and neonatal complications in a highrisk population. Materials and Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed on 100 high-risk singleton pregnancies. Vaginal suppository progesterone (400 mg) or placebo was administered daily between 16-22 wks to 36 wks of gestation. Progesterone (n=50) and placebo (n=50) groups were compared for incidence of preterm delivery and neonatal complications. Results: The preterm birth rate was 52%. Preterm birth rate before the 37 wks of gestation (68% vs. 36%: RR=1.89, 95% CI: 1.25-2.86) and also before the 34 wks of gestation (42% vs. 18%: RR=2.33, 95% CI: 1.19-4.58) in placebo group was significantly higher than progesterone group. Our study also showed that the administration of vaginal progesterone was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of birth weight ≤2500 gr, the rates of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) in the progesterone group when compared with the placebo group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of neonatal death, days of admission in NICU, intraventricular hemorrhage and necrotizing enterocolitis. Conclusion: Prophylactic vaginal progesterone reduced the rate of preterm delivery, the risk of a birth weight ≤2500 gr, the rates of RDS and admission to NICU in women who were at risk of preterm delivery.
The diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and metabolic syndrome (MS) in adolescents is clinically challenging. It is on the rise as consistent with the increasing trends in obesity rates. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of PCOS in adolescents by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria and compare the prevalence of insulin resistance (IR) and metabolic syndrome (MS) between obese (OB) and non-obese (NOB) adolescents with PCOS. This was cross-sectional research with multi-stage cluster random sampling. Participants were 15-18-year-old girls from high schools in Semnan, Iran. The ones who had a history of menstrual dysfunction underwent clinical and hormonal tests. From among a total of 900 participants, 74 girls (8.2%) had a history of menstrual dysfunction. The prevalence of PCOS was 6.44% by NIH criteria. The prevalence of abnormal glucose metabolism, MS, and IR in girls with PCOS were 8(13.7%), 6(10.3%), 24(41.4%), respectively. The OB-PCOS group with a mean BMI of 28.21±1.26 kg/m2 had a significantly greater prevalence of MS, high BP, waist circumference ≥88 cm, and higher IR than NOB-PCOS cases with a mean BMI of 20.54±2.97 kg/m2. Abnormal glucose metabolism was prevalent in adolescents with PCOS and occurred with equal frequency in OB and NOB PCOS groups. Obesity could worsen IR, MS, and some of the components of Mets in PCOS adolescents.
Background: Different progesterone doses and routes are used for luteal phase support in stimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, but the optimal supplementation scheme has not yet been determined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the administration of two different doses of vaginal progesterone with two doses of intramuscular (IM) progesterone for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IUI cycles. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 312 women with unexplained or male-factor infertility intending to start IUI cycles between April 2015 and January 2018 were included. They were randomized into four groups (n=78/each) including group 1 who received IM progesterone in oil (25 mg daily), group 2 who received IM progesterone in oil (50 mg daily), group 3 who received progesterone suppository (400 mg daily), and group 4 who received progesterone suppository (800 mg daily; 400 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. The ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and patients’ satisfaction, and convenience the secondary outcomes. Results: In our study, the overall clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates per cycle with COS and IUI were 16.02% and 12.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and abortion rates among groups (p=0.84). The overall patients’ satisfaction and convenience was significantly higher in the vaginal progesterone suppository groups than the IM progesterone groups (p=0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that vaginal progesterone administration provides a more easy-to-use and convenient method than IM progesterone administration for luteal phase support in IUI cycles with comparable pregnancy rates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.