• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

EPPPIC Meta-analysis Results: Progestogens for Preterm Birth Prevention

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

PURPOSE:

  • The EPPPIC group (Lancet, 2021) report on their systematic review of RCTs comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone for prevention of preterm birth

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis
    • Funded by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
    • Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC)
  • Study selection
    • Published and unpublished RCTs
    • Trials that assessed vaginal progesterone, IM 17-OHPC or oral progesterone with control, or with each other
    • Participants: Asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth
    • Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials
    • Primary data collection before July 30, 2016, (12 months before data collection began), and July 30, 2019
    • Exclusion: Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediatelythreatened preterm birth
  • Outcomes
    • Preterm birth | Early preterm birth | Mid-trimester birth
    • Adverse neonatal sequelae (composite of serious neonatal complications and individually)
    • Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually

RESULTS:

  • Individual participant data available for 31 trials | 11,644 women and 16,185 offspring

Singleton

  • Risk factors and indications for treatment
    • Previous spontaneous preterm birth
    • Short cervix (≤25 mm)
  • Preterm birth <34 weeks was reduced in women receiving progestogen
    • Vaginal progesterone: Relative risk (RR) 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.90; 9 trials)
    • 17-OHPC: RR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01; 5 trials)
    • Oral progesterone: RR 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.90; 2 trials)  
  • Other outcomes “were consistently favourable, but less certain”
  • Subpopulation analysis suggests benefit was greatest for those with short cervix

Multifetal Pregnancies

  • Generally, no additional risk factors
  • Preterm birth <34 was was not reduced in women receiving progestogen
    • Vaginal progesterone (twins): RR 1.10 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20; 8 trials)
    • 17-OHPC (twins or triplets): RR 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.18; 8 trials)
  • PPROM <34 weeks was higher with 17-OHPC
    • RR 1.59 (95% CI, 1.15 to 2.22
  • Evidence for other outcomes (risks or benefits) was not seen for vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC

CONCLUSION:

  • Preterm birth <34 weeks was reduced with vaginal progesterone and 17-OHPC in high risk pregnancies
  • Absolute risk reduction is greater for women with a short cervix
  • Evidence in this study did not support use of oral progesterone or treatment for unselected multifetal pregnancy
  • An editorial suggests
    • This current meta-analysis supports “the use of either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone to prolonged pregnancy, even with the inclusion of the negative findings from PROLONG”
    • There are other trials currently underway and therefore this study should be considered a ‘living’ meta-analysis
  • The EPPPIC authors conclude

Evidence of benefit in reducing preterm birth before 34 weeks was more certain for vaginal progesterone, but there was no clear evidence that either vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC was superior

A consistent direction of benefit was noted for other birth and neonatal outcomes, including preterm birth before 28 weeks, preterm birth before 37 weeks, perinatal mortality, and composite serious neonatal complications 

Response from SMFM and ACOG:

SMFM

  • EPPPIC reinforces current SMFM guidelines
  • Singleton pregnancy and a short cervix (<25 mm) without a history of a prior spontaneous preterm birth
    • Offer vaginal progesterone
  • Singleton gestation and a history of prior spontaneous preterm birth between 20 weeks and 36w6d
    • SMFM recommends “consideration of the use of 17-OHPC”

ACOG

  • ACOG notes that while 17-OHPC didn’t quite reach significance, the authors did not see a clear difference between route of administration, nor indication for treatment
  • ACOG states

Patients with a singleton pregnancy and a prior spontaneous preterm birth should be offered progesterone supplementation (either vaginal or intramuscular) in the context of a shared-decision making process with the patient incorporating the available evidence and the patient’s preferences

With regard to multiple gestations, the Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm Birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) findings support the current recommendation that progesterone supplementation is not indicated for the indication of multiple gestation alone as there is no evidence of benefit

Response from FDA:

  • The FDA has responded to EPPPIC and has not altered the recommendation to withdraw approval from Makena
  • The FDA states

The EPPPIC meta-analysis grouped together HPC trials of patients with differences in their risk profiles, including combining women with a prior PTB and those without a prior PTB, and women with and without a short cervix

Because of this grouping, the meta-analysis does not provide relevant information regarding Makena’s effectiveness for its approved use. CDER continues to conclude the available data have not shown Makena is effective for reducing morbidity or mortality in newborns or for the prevention of recurrent PTB in women with a prior spontaneous PTB 

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials

Lancet Editorial: Role of progestogens in women at risk for spontaneous preterm birth: the final word?

SMFM Statement: Response to EPPPIC and considerations of the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth

ACOG Clinical Guidance for the Integration of the Findings of the EPPPIC Meta-Analysis: Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm Birth International Collaborative

FDA: CDER perspective on recently published results of EPPPIC meta-analysis

Want to stay on top of key guidelines and research papers?

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Does a Weekly Dose of 17-OHPC Improve Outcomes in the Setting of Preterm Ruptured Membranes?
Progesterone, Cerclage or Pessary for Prevention of Preterm Birth: A Comparison
17-OHPC Treatment and Prevention of Preterm Birth: Does Timing Matter?
Do Progestogens Prevent Preterm Birth in Symptomatic Pregnancies with a Short Cervix?
How do Compounded vs. Commercial 170HP Formulations Compare?
Does Use of Progestogen Prolong Labor in PPROM Pregnancies?

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site