PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(04): 405-413
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740512
Original Article

Effectiveness of 17-OHP for Prevention of Recurrent Preterm Birth: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Joe B. Hakim 
1   Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
,
Amy Zhou
2   Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Sonia Hernandez-Diaz
3   Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Jessica M. Hart
4   Divisiont of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Blair J. Wylie‡   *
4   Divisiont of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Andrew L. Beam‡   *
3   Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
5   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Institutsangaben Funding A.L.B. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Health (NIH) National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI; award no.: 7K01HL141771). The funding source had no involvement in the conduct of this research.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHP) has been recommended by professional societies for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth, but subsequent clinical studies have reported conflicting efficacy results. This study aimed to contribute to the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of 17-OHP in clinical practice using real-world data.

Study Design A total of 4,422 individuals meeting inclusion criteria representing recurrent spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) were identified in a database of insurance claims, and 568 (12.8%) received 17-OHP. Crude and propensity score-matched recurrence rates and risk ratios (RRs) for the association of receiving 17-OHP on recurrent sPTB were calculated.

Results Raw sPTB recurrence rates were higher among those treated versus not treated; after propensity score matching, no association was detected (26.3 vs. 23.8%, RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.9–1.4).

Conclusion We failed to identify a beneficial effect of 17-OHP for the prevention of spontaneous recurrent preterm birth in our observational, U.S. based cohort.

Key Points

  • We observed higher risk for sPTB in the group receiving 17-OHP in the unmatched analysis

  • After propensity-score matching, we still failed to identify a beneficial effect of 17-OHP on sPTB

  • Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to the inclusion criteria and modeling assumptions.

Keywords

progesterone - obstetrics - observational data - propensity score - premature rupture of membranes - spontaneous preterm delivery

Authors' Contributions

J.B.H. was responsible for designing the study, acquiring the data, writing the code for the analyses, and preparing the manuscript. A.Z. was responsible for acquiring the data, writing the code for the analyses, and preparing the manuscript. S.H.-D. was responsible for preparing the manuscript, and designing the statistical analyses used to debias the observational data. J.M.H. was responsible for preparing the manuscript, and identifying relevant covariates usable to adjust for treatment assignment and outcome differences in the treated and untreated group. B.J.W. was responsible for preparing the manuscript, and identifying relevant covariates usable to adjust for treatment assignment and outcome differences in the treated and untreated group. A.L.B. was responsible for designing the study, designing the statistical analyses used to debias the observational data, and preparing the manuscript.


* These authors contributed equally to this work.


We observe that some of the modeling approaches result in effect estimates bounded away from zero, with a higher risk in the treated population.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 21. Juni 2021

Angenommen: 24. Oktober 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Cassiano RGM, Gaspardo CM, Linhares MBM. Prematurity, neonatal health status, and later child behavioral/emotional problems: a systematic review. Infant Ment Health J 2016; 37 (03) 274-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Heida KY, Velthuis BK, Oudijk MA. et al; Dutch Guideline Development Group on Cardiovascular Risk Management after Reproductive Disorders. Cardiovascular disease risk in women with a history of spontaneous preterm delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016; 23 (03) 253-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beam AL, Fried I, Palmer N. et al. Estimates of healthcare spending for preterm and low-birthweight infants in a commercially insured population: 2008-2016. J Perinatol 2020; 40 (07) 1091-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Grosse SD, Waitzman NJ, Yang N, Abe K, Barfield WD. Employer-sponsored plan expenditures for infants born preterm. Pediatrics 2017; 140 (04) e20171078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schmitt SK, Sneed L, Phibbs CS. Costs of newborn care in California: a population-based study. Pediatrics 2006; 117 (01) 154-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fried I, Beam AL, Kohane IS, Palmer NP. Utilization, cost, and outcome of branded vs compounded 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate in prevention of preterm birth. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (11) 1689-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Blencowe H, Cousens S, Chou D. et al; Born Too Soon Preterm Birth Action Group. Born too soon: the global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births. Reprod Health 2013; 10 (Suppl. 01) S2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Highlights of prescribing information. Accessed November 26, 2021: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/021945s012lbl.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 da Fonseca EB, Bittar RE, Carvalho MHB, Zugaib M. Prophylactic administration of progesterone by vaginal suppository to reduce the incidence of spontaneous preterm birth in women at increased risk: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (02) 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Norman JE, Marlow N, Messow C-M. et al; OPPTIMUM study group. Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10033): 2106-2116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Crowther CA, Ashwood P, McPhee AJ. et al; PROGRESS Study Group. Vaginal progesterone pessaries for pregnant women with a previous preterm birth to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (the PROGRESS Study): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Med 2017; 14 (09) e1002390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ibrahim M, Mohamed Ramy AR, Younis MA-F. Progesterone supplementation for prevention of preterm labor: a randomized controlled trial. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2010; 15: 39-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (24) 2379-2385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fernandez-Macias R, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Cerrillos L, Figueras F, Palacio M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate versus placebo for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 147 (02) 156-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Blackwell SC, Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Biggio Jr JR. et al. 17-OHPC to Prevent Recurrent Preterm Birth in Singleton Gestations (PROLONG Study): a multicenter, international, randomized double-blind trial. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (02) 127-136
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kyriacou DN, Lewis RJ. Confounding by indication in clinical research. JAMA 2016; 316 (17) 1818-1819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chen R, Regodón Wallin A, Sjölander A. et al. Childhood injury after a parental cancer diagnosis. eLife 2015; 4: e08500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ailes EC, Simeone RM, Dawson AL, Petersen EE, Gilboa SM. Using insurance claims data to identify and estimate critical periods in pregnancy: An application to antidepressants. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2016; 106 (11) 927-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Center for Drug Evaluation. National drug code directory. Accessed August 30, 2020: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/national-drug-code-directory
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 American Medical Association. CPT Professional 2020. Revised ed.. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Manuck TA, Esplin MS, Biggio J. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Genomics and Proteomics Network for Preterm Birth Research (GPN-PBR). Predictors of response to 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate for prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (03) 376.e1-376.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nelson DB, McIntire DD, McDonald J, Gard J, Turrichi P, Leveno KJ. 17-alpha Hydroxyprogesterone caproate did not reduce the rate of recurrent preterm birth in a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (06) 600.e1-600.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hart JM, Hakim JB, Wylie BJ, Beam AL. 534 Regional differences in utilization of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17OHP). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224: S338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee. Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. SMFM Statement: Use of 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate for prevention of recurrent preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223: B16-B18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Foody JM, Mendys PM, Liu LZ, Simpson Jr RJ. The utility of observational studies in clinical decision making: lessons learned from statin trials. Postgrad Med 2010; 122 (03) 222-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sorbets E, Steg PG, Young R. et al; CLARIFY investigators. β-blockers, calcium antagonists, and mortality in stable coronary artery disease: an international cohort study. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (18) 1399-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nissen SE, Reed GW. Can we trust observational data for clinical decision-making?. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (18) 1408-1410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar