Antenatal Corticosteroid Use in Twin Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-04 DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000006344
Carolina Alves Felippe, Sinrraim Dos Santos Chaves Ruiz, Rebeca Ferreira de Souza, Aliny Silva de Lima, Priscila Luiza Dos Santos, Pandora Eloa Oliveira Fonseca, Ingryd de Almeida Silva, Carlos Roberto Montes-de-Oca-Saucedo, Ana Cecília Oliveira Santana, Jasmina Veta Darkovski, Hadas Rachel Matlaw, Laura Fonseca Queiroz
{"title":"Antenatal Corticosteroid Use in Twin Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Carolina Alves Felippe, Sinrraim Dos Santos Chaves Ruiz, Rebeca Ferreira de Souza, Aliny Silva de Lima, Priscila Luiza Dos Santos, Pandora Eloa Oliveira Fonseca, Ingryd de Almeida Silva, Carlos Roberto Montes-de-Oca-Saucedo, Ana Cecília Oliveira Santana, Jasmina Veta Darkovski, Hadas Rachel Matlaw, Laura Fonseca Queiroz","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000006344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To synthesize evidence on the benefit-risk profile of antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) exposure in twin pregnancies and to explore effect modification by gestational age at birth.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to October 2025) were searched using terms for twin pregnancy or multiple gestation and antenatal corticosteroids (eg, betamethasone, dexamethasone).</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251275650), we included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and observational studies comparing ACS exposure with no ACS in twin pregnancies and reporting neonatal outcomes. Observational studies were eligible if they reported sufficient raw outcome data to permit quantitative synthesis. Primary outcomes were neonatal mortality and neonatal hypoglycemia; key secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care unit admission and major respiratory outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic, and small-study effects were evaluated when feasible. Prespecified subgroup analyses examined gestational age (less than 34 weeks vs 34 or more weeks). Sixteen studies (18,367 neonates, 8,723 ACS exposed) were included. Overall, the certainty of evidence was moderate to low. Exposure to ACS was not significantly associated with a reduction in neonatal mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01). Antenatal corticosteroid was not associated with a reduction in respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) overall (RR 1.11, 95% CI, 0.81-1.52), and gestational age-stratified analyses were nonsignificant. Exposure to ACS was associated with increased supplemental oxygen requirement (RR 1.72, 95% CI, 1.07-2.74), neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 1.80, 95% CI, 1.30-2.51), and NICU or special care unit admission (RR 1.33, 95% CI, 1.07-1.64), with consistent hypoglycemia effects across gestational ages.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In twin pregnancies, ACS exposure was not consistently associated with improved neonatal outcomes, with no overall reduction in RDS and neonatal mortality. Associations with increased risks of hypoglycemia, oxygen requirement, and NICU or special care unit admission were observed. Given the moderate-to-low certainty of the available evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD420251275650.</p>","PeriodicalId":19483,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"434-444"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000006344","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To synthesize evidence on the benefit-risk profile of antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) exposure in twin pregnancies and to explore effect modification by gestational age at birth.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to October 2025) were searched using terms for twin pregnancy or multiple gestation and antenatal corticosteroids (eg, betamethasone, dexamethasone).

Methods of study selection: In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251275650), we included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and observational studies comparing ACS exposure with no ACS in twin pregnancies and reporting neonatal outcomes. Observational studies were eligible if they reported sufficient raw outcome data to permit quantitative synthesis. Primary outcomes were neonatal mortality and neonatal hypoglycemia; key secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care unit admission and major respiratory outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions.

Tabulation, integration, and results: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic, and small-study effects were evaluated when feasible. Prespecified subgroup analyses examined gestational age (less than 34 weeks vs 34 or more weeks). Sixteen studies (18,367 neonates, 8,723 ACS exposed) were included. Overall, the certainty of evidence was moderate to low. Exposure to ACS was not significantly associated with a reduction in neonatal mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01). Antenatal corticosteroid was not associated with a reduction in respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) overall (RR 1.11, 95% CI, 0.81-1.52), and gestational age-stratified analyses were nonsignificant. Exposure to ACS was associated with increased supplemental oxygen requirement (RR 1.72, 95% CI, 1.07-2.74), neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 1.80, 95% CI, 1.30-2.51), and NICU or special care unit admission (RR 1.33, 95% CI, 1.07-1.64), with consistent hypoglycemia effects across gestational ages.

Conclusion: In twin pregnancies, ACS exposure was not consistently associated with improved neonatal outcomes, with no overall reduction in RDS and neonatal mortality. Associations with increased risks of hypoglycemia, oxygen requirement, and NICU or special care unit admission were observed. Given the moderate-to-low certainty of the available evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD420251275650.

双胎妊娠产前使用皮质类固醇:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:综合双胎妊娠产前皮质类固醇(ACS)暴露的利弊分析证据,探讨出生胎龄和研究设计对其影响的影响。数据来源:PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(从成立到2025年10月)使用双胎妊娠或多胎妊娠和产前皮质类固醇(如倍他米松,地塞米松)检索。研究选择方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PROSPERO CRD420251275650),我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究,比较双胎妊娠中ACS暴露和非ACS暴露并报告新生儿结局。观察性研究只有在报告了考虑相关混杂因素的调整后的效果估计时才合格。主要结局是新生儿死亡率和新生儿低血糖;主要次要结局包括新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)或特殊护理病房入院和主要呼吸结局。使用Cochraneⅱ版偏倚风险工具和非随机干预研究的偏倚风险评估偏倚风险。制表、整合和结果:进行随机效应荟萃分析,以95% ci估计风险比(rr)。采用I2统计量评估异质性,可行时评估小研究效应。预先指定的亚组分析检查了胎龄(小于34周vs大于34周)和研究设计。纳入了16项研究(18,367名新生儿,8,723名ACS暴露)。总体而言,证据的确定性从中等到低。暴露于ACS与新生儿死亡率的降低没有显著相关(RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01)。产前皮质类固醇与呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)的总体减少无关(RR 1.11, 95% CI, 0.81-1.52),胎龄分层分析无显著性;然而,仅限于rct的分析表明,暴露于ACS的新生儿发生RDS的风险更高(结论:在双胎妊娠中,ACS暴露与新生儿结局的改善并不一致,总体上没有降低RDS和新生儿死亡率。观察到低血糖、需氧量、新生儿重症监护病房或特殊护理病房入院风险增加的相关性。鉴于现有证据的中低确定性,这些发现应谨慎解释。系统评价注册号:PROSPERO, CRD420251275650。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Obstetrics and gynecology
Obstetrics and gynecology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
867
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: "Obstetrics & Gynecology," affectionately known as "The Green Journal," is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Since its inception in 1953, the journal has been dedicated to advancing the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology, as well as related fields. The journal's mission is to promote excellence in these areas by publishing a diverse range of articles that cover translational and clinical topics. "Obstetrics & Gynecology" provides a platform for the dissemination of evidence-based research, clinical guidelines, and expert opinions that are essential for the continuous improvement of women's health care. The journal's content is designed to inform and educate obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals, ensuring that they stay abreast of the latest developments and best practices in their field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书