Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2019 Feb;23(9):1-356. doi: 10.3310/hta23090.
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH, but it is still debatable which drug or combination of drugs is the most effective.
To identify the most effective and cost-effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.
The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015). In addition, reference lists of retrieved studies (updated October 2017) were searched for randomised trials evaluating uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH. The study estimated relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH, defined as blood loss of ≥ 500 ml and ≥ 1000 ml. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs and combinations thereof [ergometrine, misoprostol (Cytotec; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), misoprostol plus oxytocin (Syntocinon; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), carbetocin (Pabal; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), ergometrine plus oxytocin (Syntometrine; Alliance Pharma plc, Chippenham, UK), oxytocin, and a placebo or no treatment]. Primary outcomes were stratified according to the mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, health-care setting, drug dosage, regimen and route of drug administration. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to study quality and funding source, among others. A model-based economic evaluation compared the relative cost-effectiveness separately for vaginal births and caesareans with or without including side effects.
From 137 randomised trials and 87,466 women, ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were found to reduce the risk of PPH blood loss of ≥ 500 ml compared with the standard drug, oxytocin [ergometrine plus oxytocin: risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83; carbetocin: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9]. Each of these three strategies had 100% cumulative probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth, with an almost 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three. Similar rankings were noted for the reduction of PPH blood loss of ≥ 1000 ml (ergometrine plus oxytocin: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; carbetocin: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), and most secondary outcomes. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin had the poorest ranking for side effects. Carbetocin had a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, the analysis was restricted to high-quality studies, carbetocin lost its ranking and was comparable to oxytocin. The relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies is inconclusive, and the results are affected by both the uncertainty and inconsistency in the data reported on adverse events. For vaginal delivery, when assuming no adverse events, ergometrine plus oxytocin is less costly and more effective than all strategies except carbetocin. The strategy of carbetocin is both more effective and more costly than all other strategies. When taking adverse events into consideration, all prevention strategies, except oxytocin, are more costly and less effective than carbetocin. For delivery by caesarean section, with and without adverse events, the relative cost-effectiveness is different, again because of the uncertainty in the available data.
There was considerable uncertainty in findings within the planned subgroup analyses, and subgroup effects cannot be ruled out.
Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are more effective uterotonic drug strategies for preventing PPH than the current standard, oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin cause significant side effects. Carbetocin has a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, most carbetocin trials are small and of poor quality. There is a need for a large high-quality trial comparing carbetocin with oxytocin; such a trial is currently being conducted by the WHO. The relative cost-effectiveness is inconclusive, and results are affected by uncertainty and inconsistency in adverse events data.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020005; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (substudy) reference number 0871; PROSPERO-Cochrane (substudy) reference number CRD42015026568; and sponsor reference number ERN_13-1414 (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK).
Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme in a research award to the University of Birmingham and supported by the UK charity Ammalife (UK-registered charity 1120236). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data synthesis, interpretation or writing of the report.
产后出血(PPH)是全世界导致产妇死亡的主要原因。预防性使用宫缩药物可以减少出血,并且常规推荐使用。有几种宫缩药物可用于预防 PPH,但哪种药物或联合用药最有效仍存在争议。
确定预防 PPH 最有效和最具成本效益的宫缩药物,并根据其有效性和副作用情况进行排名。
我们检索了 Cochrane 妊娠与分娩临床试验注册库(2015 年 6 月 1 日)、ClinicalTrials.gov 和世界卫生组织(WHO)的国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)以获取未发表的试验报告(2015 年 6 月 30 日)。此外,还对检索到的研究(2017 年 10 月更新)的参考文献进行了搜索,以寻找评估用于预防 PPH 的宫缩药物的随机试验。该研究估计了预防 PPH 的相对效果和排名,定义为出血量≥500ml 和≥1000ml。进行了两两荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析,以确定所有可用药物及其组合的相对效果和排名[麦角新碱、米索前列醇(Cytotec;辉瑞公司,纽约,NY,美国)、米索前列醇加催产素(Syntocinon;诺华国际公司,巴塞尔,瑞士)、卡贝缩宫素(Pabal;Ferring 制药公司,圣普雷克斯,瑞士)、麦角新碱加催产素(Syntometrine;Alliance Pharma plc,奇彭纳姆,英国)、催产素和安慰剂或不治疗]。主要结局根据分娩方式、PPH 风险前、医疗保健环境、药物剂量、方案和给药途径进行分层。根据研究质量和资金来源等进行了敏感性分析。基于模型的经济评估分别比较了阴道分娩和剖宫产的相对成本效益,包括或不包括副作用。
从 137 项随机试验和 87466 名妇女中发现,麦角新碱加催产素、卡贝缩宫素和米索前列醇加催产素与标准药物催产素相比,可降低 PPH 出血量≥500ml 的风险[麦角新碱加催产素:风险比(RR)0.69,95%置信区间(CI)0.57 至 0.83;卡贝缩宫素:RR 0.72,95% CI 0.52 至 1.00;米索前列醇加催产素:RR 0.73,95% CI 0.6 至 0.9]。这三种策略中的每一种都有 100%的累积概率被排在第一、第二或第三位。催产素排名第四,几乎没有 0%的累积概率排在前三。类似的排名也出现在预防 PPH 出血量≥1000ml 方面(麦角新碱加催产素:RR 0.77,95% CI 0.61 至 0.95;卡贝缩宫素:RR 0.70,95% CI 0.38 至 1.28;米索前列醇加催产素:RR 0.90,95% CI 0.72 至 1.14)和大多数次要结局。麦角新碱加催产素和米索前列醇加催产素的副作用排名最差。卡贝缩宫素具有良好的副作用特征,与催产素相似。然而,该分析仅限于高质量的研究,卡贝缩宫素失去了排名,与催产素相当。替代策略的相对成本效益尚不确定,并且数据报告的不良反应的不确定性和不一致性会影响结果。对于阴道分娩,当假设没有不良反应时,麦角新碱加催产素比卡贝缩宫素以外的所有策略都更便宜、更有效。卡贝缩宫素策略比其他所有策略都更有效且成本更高。考虑到不良反应时,除催产素外,所有预防策略都比卡贝缩宫素更昂贵且效果更差。对于剖宫产,有无不良反应,相对成本效益都不同,这同样是由于现有数据的不确定性。
计划的亚组分析中存在相当大的不确定性,不能排除亚组效应。
与目前的标准药物催产素相比,麦角新碱加催产素、卡贝缩宫素和米索前列醇加催产素是预防 PPH 更有效的宫缩药物策略。麦角新碱加催产素和米索前列醇加催产素会引起明显的副作用。卡贝缩宫素具有良好的副作用特征,与催产素相似。然而,大多数卡贝缩宫素试验规模较小且质量较差。需要进行一项比较卡贝缩宫素与催产素的大型高质量试验,目前该试验正在由世界卫生组织进行。相对成本效益尚不确定,结果受到不良反应数据的不确定性和不一致性的影响。
本研究是作为 PROSPERO CRD42015020005 注册的;Cochrane 妊娠与分娩组(亚组)参考号 0871;PROSPERO-Cochrane(亚组)参考号 CRD42015026568;以及 University of Birmingham(英国伯明翰)的赞助商参考号 ERN_13-1414。
本研究由英国国民健康保险制度卫生技术评估计划提供资金,该计划向伯明翰大学授予研究奖,并得到英国慈善机构 Ammalife(英国注册慈善机构 1120236)的支持。研究的资助者在研究设计、数据收集、数据综合、解释或报告撰写方面没有任何作用。