To compare the long-term effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome at age 2.5-5.5 years.The APOSTEL III trial was a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in 503 women with threatened preterm birth. Neonatal outcomes did not differ between both treatment arms, except for a higher incidence of intubation in the atosiban group.Parents were asked to complete four questionnaires regarding neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour problems and general health.The main long-term outcome measure was a composite of abnormal development at the age of 2.5-5.5 years.Of the 426 women eligible for follow-up, 196 (46%) parents returned the questionnaires for 115 children in the nifedipine group and 110 children in the atosiban group. Abnormal development occurred in 32 children (30%) in the nifedipine group and in 38 children (38%) in the atosiban group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.34). The separate outcomes for neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour, and general health showed no significant differences between the groups. Sensitivity analysis for all children of the APOSTEL III trial, including a comparison of deceased children, resulted in a higher rate of healthy survival in the nifedipine group (64 versus 54%), but there was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (5.4 versus 2.7%). There were no significant subgroup effects.Outcomes on broad child neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour and general health were comparable in both groups. Neither nifedipine nor atosiban can be considered as the preferred treatment for women with threatened preterm birth.Nifedipine- and atosiban-exposed children had comparable long-term outcomes, including neurodevelopment, executive function and behaviour.
Abstract Background Worldwide, nifedipine and atosiban are the two most commonly used tocolytic agents for the treatment of threatened preterm birth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nifedipine and atosiban in an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Methods We investigated the occurrence of adverse neonatal outcomes in women with threatened preterm birth by performing an IPDMA, and sought to identify possible subgroups in which one treatment may be preferred. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for trials comparing nifedipine and atosiban for treatment of threatened preterm birth between 24 0/7 and 34 0/7 weeks’ gestational age. Primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidities including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, necrotising enterocolitis, and sepsis. Secondary outcomes included NICU admission, prolongation of pregnancy and GA at delivery. For studies that did not have the original databases available, metadata was used. This led to a two-stage meta-analysis that combined individual participant data with aggregate metadata. Results We detected four studies ( N = 791 women), of which two provided individual participant data ( N = 650 women). The composite neonatal outcome occurred in 58/364 (16%) after nifedipine versus 69/359 (19%) after atosiban (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.47–1.23). Perinatal death occurred in 14/392 (3.6%) after nifedipine versus 7/380 (1.8%) after atosiban (OR 2.0, 95%CI 0.80–5.1). Nifedipine results in longer prolongation of pregnancy, with a 18 days to delivery compared with 10 days for atosiban (HR 0.83 (96% CI 0.69–0.99)). NICU admission occurred less often after nifedipine (46%) than after atosiban (59%), (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14–0.75). The sensitivity analysis revealed no difference in prolongation of pregnancy for 48 hours (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73–1.4) or 7 days (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.85–5.8) between nifedipine and atosiban. There was a non-significant higher neonatal mortality in the nifedipine-exposed group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60–3.4). Conclusions In this IPDMA, we found no differences in composite outcome between nifedipine and atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth. However, the non-significant higher mortality after administering nifedipine warrants further investigation of the use of nifedipine as a tocolytic drug. Study registration We conducted this study according to a prospectively prepared protocol, registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under CRD42016024244.
Preterm birth presents a significant challenge in clinical obstetrics, requiring effective strategies to reduce associated mortality and morbidity risks. Tocolytic drugs, aimed at inhibiting uterine contractions, are a key aspect of addressing this challenge. Despite extensive research over many years, determining the most effective tocolytic agents remains a complex task, prompting better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of spontaneous preterm birth and recording meaningful outcome measures. This paper provides a comprehensive review of various obsolete and current tocolytic drug regimens that were instituted over the past century, examining both historical contexts and contemporary challenges in their development and adoption. The examination of historical debates and advancements highlights the complexity of introducing new therapies. While the search for effective tocolytics continues, questions arise regarding their actual benefits in obstetric care and the necessity for ongoing exploration. The presence of methodological limitations in current research emphasizes the importance of well-designed randomized controlled trials with robust endpoints and extended follow-up periods. In response to these complexities, the consideration of shifting towards prevention strategies aimed at addressing the root causes of preterm labor becomes more and more evident. This potential shift may offer a more effective approach than relying solely on tocolytics to delay labor initiation. Ultimately, effectively managing threatened preterm birth necessitates ongoing investigation, innovation, and a willingness to reassess strategies in pursuit of optimal outcomes for mothers, neonates, and long-term child health.
Analysis of national implementation of the foetal fibronectin test in the diagnostics of threatened preterm labour in the Netherlands, and indication of the possible obstacles and consequences of implementation or no implementation.National questionnaire, retrospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness calculation.We approached all hospitals in the Netherlands (n = 86) with a questionnaire on use of the fibronectin test. We also collected data on women who were referred to the Academic Medical Center (AMC), a tertiary care centre in Amsterdam, with symptoms of threatened preterm labour. We investigated whether the referred patients gave birth within 7 days, and whether unnecessary transfer to a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in the referring hospital.The fibronectin test was used in 34% of the hospitals and an additional 17% were in the process of implementation. The most important reasons not to use the fibronectin test were of a financial nature (50%). The cohort study included 96 women who were referred from secondary care. In our cohort, 36% of all transfers could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in secondary care.The fibronectin test can greatly reduce overtreatment and unnecessary transfer in threatened preterm labour, but implementation remains limited. Costs of the test are an obstacle for the referring hospitals, while implementation prevents unnecessary transport, admission and treatment of pregnant women, giving a potential saving of at least EUR 1,027,930 per year. Inclusion in the Netherlands Society for Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, NVOG) guidelines would be a first step towards wider implementation. Slow implementation exemplifies a more widespread problem: the current reimbursement system does not stimulate such cost-saving innovations.
Women of Black and other non-Western ethnicity and women who live in deprived neighborhoods are at increased risk for preterm birth (PTB). These women may live clustered in certain urban areas. If ethnicity reflects a biological rather than a socioeconomic risk factor, women should have a PTB risk independent of the urban area where they live. In this study we explored the association between urban living and the risk of PTB, combined with knowledge on ethnicity and neighborhood deprivation in these specific urban areas in the Netherlands.National cohort study of 935,381 women (2014-2019) with a singleton pregnancy resulting in live birth between 24.0 and 42.6 weeks. Antepartum death and severe congenital anomalies were excluded. We performed logistic regression analysis and analyzed the impact of living in one of the four main urban areas on PTB. We adjusted for maternal age, parity and fetal gender. We tested for interaction between ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) and urban living.Mean PTB rate among singleton pregnancies in The Netherlands is 5.1%. There was a strong ethnic difference in PTB risk, with the highest prevalence among South Asian women (7.9%) and African women (6.6%). In the most deprived neighborhoods the PTB risk was 5.7%. We found a significant interaction between ethnicity and urban living, and between NDI and urban living. South Asian and African women living in urban areas had the greatest risk of PTB, between 7.0% and 8.8%.Ethnicity remains a fixed biological risk for PTB that cannot be fully explained by socioeconomic status or neighborhood deprivation. Independent of ethnicity and neighborhood deprivation, urban living has a great influence on the risk of preterm birth. Future studies and policies should focus on population-based interventions in those urban areas where South Asian and African ethnic groups live and where the preterm birth risk is the highest.