Comparative effectiveness and safety of nifedipine and magnesium sulfate as treatment options for preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jianing Fan, Qianqian Lu, Jie Chen, Pingping Lin, Chong Fan, Juan Lyv, Yuhan Zhang, Xinyan Wang
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness and safety of nifedipine and magnesium sulfate as treatment options for preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jianing Fan, Qianqian Lu, Jie Chen, Pingping Lin, Chong Fan, Juan Lyv, Yuhan Zhang, Xinyan Wang","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Preterm birth (PTB) is a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective use of tocolytic agents may improve perinatal outcomes. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nifedipine and magnesium sulfate in the treatment of PTB.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, WanFang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched from inception to 1 December 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compare the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulfate versus nifedipine in treating PTB.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two researchers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for RCTs and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager V.5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 50 articles were included in this review, comprising 6072 cases (n=3014 for the magnesium sulfate group; n=3058 for the nifedipine group). Compared with the magnesium sulfate group, the nifedipine group was more favourable in terms of time to onset of action and prolongation of days of gestation, as well as higher neonatal 1 min Apgar scores. The use of magnesium sulfate was associated with a higher incidence of maternal side effects, specifically tachycardia, flushing, palpitations, dizziness and nausea. In addition, the magnesium sulfate group also showed a higher incidence of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome than the nifedipine group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with magnesium sulfate, nifedipine is more effective with a faster onset of action and a longer prolonging pregnancy. Additionally, nifedipine may be safer for fewer maternal side effects and better neonatal outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety and efficacy of these treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 2","pages":"e085938"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Preterm birth (PTB) is a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective use of tocolytic agents may improve perinatal outcomes. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nifedipine and magnesium sulfate in the treatment of PTB.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, WanFang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched from inception to 1 December 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compare the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulfate versus nifedipine in treating PTB.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two researchers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for RCTs and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager V.5.4.

Results: In all, 50 articles were included in this review, comprising 6072 cases (n=3014 for the magnesium sulfate group; n=3058 for the nifedipine group). Compared with the magnesium sulfate group, the nifedipine group was more favourable in terms of time to onset of action and prolongation of days of gestation, as well as higher neonatal 1 min Apgar scores. The use of magnesium sulfate was associated with a higher incidence of maternal side effects, specifically tachycardia, flushing, palpitations, dizziness and nausea. In addition, the magnesium sulfate group also showed a higher incidence of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome than the nifedipine group.

Conclusion: Compared with magnesium sulfate, nifedipine is more effective with a faster onset of action and a longer prolonging pregnancy. Additionally, nifedipine may be safer for fewer maternal side effects and better neonatal outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety and efficacy of these treatments.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信