Progesterone support in pregnancy has been in use for over 60 years, having received its start in the 1940s. Its initial use was in patients who had habitual spontaneous abortion caused by luteal phase deficiency. More recently, the administration of progesterone later in pregnancy has been considered to be justified because of an observed decrease in circulating progesterone with the onset of labor, an association of premature labor with decreased progesterone concentrations, and the observation that progesterone has a tocolytic effect. A considerable boost to the use of progestational agents to reduce preterm delivery was received with the publication of two papers which showed a significant reduction in preterm delivery rates with the prophylactic administration of either progesterone or 17-a hydroxyprogesterone caproate. Recently it has been shown, however, that its use is not universal. This may be related to the significant late sequelae that were documented following the in utero exposure of the fetus to the potent steroid diethylstilbestrol (DES) and that this bad experience cast “a long shadow,” In spite of this, the use of progesterone, at least in early pregnancy, is widespread in the various artificial reproductive programs and is growing in its use as an agent to reduce prematurity. Over the years, there has been an extraordinary amount of confusion related to the use of progesterone support in pregnancy. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) created some of this confusion. In various labeling of progesterone products by the FDA, one of the contraindications to the use of oral progesterone is listed as “known or suspected pregnancy.” And, yet, no such contraindication is identified for the use of progesterone gel. In fact, progesterone gel is indicated for progesterone supplementation or replacement as a part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment program for infertile women with a progesterone deficiency. To make this even more confusing, oral progesterone, while it was contraindicated in “known or suspected pregnancy,” its official labeling stated that it “should be used during pregnancy only if indicated (see contraindications).” Also, up until very recently, there was a dire “warning” contained in the labeling for USP progesterone injection in sesame seed oil regarding an increased possibility of birth defects. An analysis of the fetal safety of isomolecular progesterone (Pregn-4-ene-3,20-dione) administration during the course of 1,310 pregnancies over a 35-year period of time (1979-2014) was undertaken to address this confusion.
Hilgers, T. W., Keefe, C. E., & Pakiz, K. A. (2015). The Use of Isomolecular Progesterone in the Support of Pregnancy and Fetal Safety. Issues in law & medicine, 30(2), 159-168.
Hilgers TW, Keefe CE, Pakiz KA. The Use of Isomolecular Progesterone in the Support of Pregnancy and Fetal Safety. Issues Law Med. 2015;30(2):159-168.
Hilgers, Thomas W., et al. "The Use of Isomolecular Progesterone in the Support of Pregnancy and Fetal Safety." Issues in law & medicine, vol. 30, no. 2, 2015, pp. 159-168.
Eighty pregnant women at high risk of giving birth prematurely were divided randomly into two groups. Treatment with either 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, 250 mg by intramuscular injection once a week, or a placebo was given in a double-blind fashion. Imminent premature labor occurred in 29.0% of the treated group and in 59.4% of the control group (p less than 0.025). The rate of premature deliveries was also significantly lower in the treated group (16.1%) than in the control group (37.82%) (p less than 0.05). There were no cases of perinatal death or fetal malformations in either group. The mean birth weight of all infants of the treated group was significantly higher than in those of the control group (3111.9 +/- 905 gm versus 2680 +/- 813.4 gm, p less than 0.05). The results support treatment with progesterone caproate for the prevention of premature labor.
Studies have been undertaken regarding the efficacy and modus operandi of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17 alpha-OHP-C) in preventing premature labor in high-risk patients. In a total of 70 patients, the treated patient population had a prematurity rate (12.8%) and a perinatal mortality rate (5%) which were significantly lower than those of the total placebo or untreated patient group (40.9 and 25%, respectively). In addition, sequential plasma steroid values were determined in 21 patients, 10 of whom delivered prematurely. The results indicate that low plasma progesterone (P) and 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone (17 alpha-OHP) levels precede the onset of preterm labor by weeks. Successful treatment with 17 alpha-OHP-C was characterized by elevated P levels. Plasma estradiol (E2) and cortisol (C) values did not vary with time of delivery or treatment. These findings support the progesterone block theory as an important mechanism affecting preterm delivery in this high-risk population.
We conducted a double-blind study to determine the efficacy of 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in preventing premature delivery in 43 high-risk patients. Premature delivery did not occur in 18 patients receiving the progestational agent, whereas 41 per cent of the 22 receiving the palcebo had premature delivery (P less than 0.01). The mean duration of pregnancy and the mean birth weight in the former group (38.6 weeks +/- 1.6 S.D., and 2836 g +/- 412 S.D.) were both significantly greater (P less than 0.025) than that in the latter (35.2 weeks +/- 6.7 S.D.; 2361 g +/- 1085 S.D.). The perinatal mortality rate in the group given the progestational agent (O per cent) was significantly less than that observed in the placebo group (27 per cent) (P less than 0.05). Although there were no complications attributable to the progestational drug, the study population was too small for assessment of immediate or long term safety. However, the results indicate a possible obstetric use for this drug.
Buskmiller C et al., 2021·Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Preoperative short cervical length (CL) remains a major risk factor for preterm birth after laser surgery for twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), but the optimal intervention to prolong pregnancy remains elusive. The objective of this study was to compare secondary methods for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies with TTTS undergoing fetoscopic laser photocoagulation (FLP), in the setting of a short cervix at the time of FLP, in five North American Fetal Treatment Network (NAFTNet) centers. This was a secondary analysis of data collected prospectively at five NAFTNet centers, conducted from January 2013 to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were a monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy complicated by TTTS, undergoing FLP, with preoperative CL < 30 mm. Management options for a short cervix included expectant management, vaginal progesterone, pessary (Arabin, incontinence or Bioteque cup), cervical cerclage or a combination of two or more treatments. Patients were not included if the intervention was initiated solely on the basis of having a twin gestation rather than at the diagnosis of a short cervix. Demographics, ultrasound characteristics, operative data and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was FLP-to-delivery interval. Propensity-score matching was performed, with each treatment group matched (1:1) to the expectant-management group for CL, in order to estimate the effect of each treatment on the FLP-to-delivery interval. A total of 255 women with a twin pregnancy complicated by TTTS and a short cervix undergoing FLP were included in the study. Of these, 151 (59%) were managed expectantly, 32 (13%) had vaginal progesterone only, 21 (8%) had pessary only, 21 (8%) had cervical cerclage only and 30 (12%) had a combination of treatments. A greater proportion of patients in the combined-treatment group had had a prior preterm birth compared with those in the expectant-management group (33% vs 9%; P = 0.01). Mean preoperative CL was shorter in the pessary, cervical-cerclage and combined-treatment groups (14-16 mm) than in the expectant-management and vaginal-progesterone groups (22 mm for both) (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in FLP-to-delivery interval between the groups, nor in gestational age at delivery or the rate of live birth or neonatal survival. Vaginal progesterone was associated with a decrease in the risk of delivery before 28 weeks' gestation compared with cervical cerclage and combined treatment (P = 0.03). Using propensity-score matching for CL, cervical cerclage was associated with a reduction in FLP-to-delivery interval of 13 days, as compared with expectant management. A large proportion of pregnancies with TTTS and a short maternal cervix undergoing FLP were managed expectantly for a short cervix, establishing a high (62%) risk of delivery before 32 weeks in this condition. No treatment that significantly improved outcome was identified; however, there were significant differences in potential confounders and there were also likely to be unmeasured confounders. Cervical cerclage should not be offered as a secondary prevention for preterm birth in twin pregnancies with TTTS and a short cervix undergoing FLP. A large randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to determine the effects of treatments for the prevention of preterm birth in these pregnancies.