治疗干预对特发性复发性妊娠丢失的疗效:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1569819
Jorge Lima, João Guerreiro, Miguel Ângelo-Dias, Sofia Silvério Serra, Teresa Costa, Natália Marto, João Feldman de Pinho, João Costa, Rodrigo Ruano, Gonçalo Silva Duarte
{"title":"治疗干预对特发性复发性妊娠丢失的疗效:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Jorge Lima, João Guerreiro, Miguel Ângelo-Dias, Sofia Silvério Serra, Teresa Costa, Natália Marto, João Feldman de Pinho, João Costa, Rodrigo Ruano, Gonçalo Silva Duarte","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2025.1569819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 50% of cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) remain unexplained, and there is a lack of consensus concerning the effective treatments for idiopathic RPL. We used network meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of several prophylactic therapeutic interventions used in women with idiopathic RPL.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases from their inceptions to 20 July 2023. References from key articles were also manually searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of any prophylactic intervention that were conducted in adult women with RPL were included. Studies with known causes of RPL were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were live births and miscarriage rates. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse/adverse events and trial discontinuation. The network meta-analyses used a Bayesian hierarchical model with direct and indirect comparisons. Rank probabilities (assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]) and certainty of evidence (assessed by Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight studies (6,379 participants) were evaluated. No statistically significant differences in live birth rates among the interventions were found. The three best-ranked interventions for this outcome were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (83%), leukocyte immune therapy (74%), and prednisolone (65%). Women who were treated with progesterone plus human chorionic gonadotrophin (instead of a placebo) presented an increase in miscarriage odds (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% credible intervals [CrIs] 1.04-14.38). The three best-ranked interventions for miscarriage rate were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (SUCRA = 81%), hydroxychloroquine (SUCRA = 79%), and intralipid (SUCRA = 65%). Overall, under placebo, 59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-67; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%) of participants underwent successful live births, and 35% (95% CI 30-42, I<sup>2</sup> = 86%) underwent miscarriages. We found no evidence of statistically significant differences between interventions (the top three interventions were low-molecular-weight heparin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and leukocyte immune therapy) in those who discontinued trial participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that none of the analyzed interventions led to improvements in the live birth rate or a reduction in the miscarriage rate in women with idiopathic RPL.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023455668.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1569819"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12116322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of therapeutic interventions for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Lima, João Guerreiro, Miguel Ângelo-Dias, Sofia Silvério Serra, Teresa Costa, Natália Marto, João Feldman de Pinho, João Costa, Rodrigo Ruano, Gonçalo Silva Duarte\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2025.1569819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 50% of cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) remain unexplained, and there is a lack of consensus concerning the effective treatments for idiopathic RPL. We used network meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of several prophylactic therapeutic interventions used in women with idiopathic RPL.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases from their inceptions to 20 July 2023. References from key articles were also manually searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of any prophylactic intervention that were conducted in adult women with RPL were included. Studies with known causes of RPL were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were live births and miscarriage rates. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse/adverse events and trial discontinuation. The network meta-analyses used a Bayesian hierarchical model with direct and indirect comparisons. Rank probabilities (assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]) and certainty of evidence (assessed by Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight studies (6,379 participants) were evaluated. No statistically significant differences in live birth rates among the interventions were found. The three best-ranked interventions for this outcome were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (83%), leukocyte immune therapy (74%), and prednisolone (65%). Women who were treated with progesterone plus human chorionic gonadotrophin (instead of a placebo) presented an increase in miscarriage odds (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% credible intervals [CrIs] 1.04-14.38). The three best-ranked interventions for miscarriage rate were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (SUCRA = 81%), hydroxychloroquine (SUCRA = 79%), and intralipid (SUCRA = 65%). Overall, under placebo, 59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-67; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%) of participants underwent successful live births, and 35% (95% CI 30-42, I<sup>2</sup> = 86%) underwent miscarriages. We found no evidence of statistically significant differences between interventions (the top three interventions were low-molecular-weight heparin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and leukocyte immune therapy) in those who discontinued trial participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that none of the analyzed interventions led to improvements in the live birth rate or a reduction in the miscarriage rate in women with idiopathic RPL.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023455668.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1569819\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12116322/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1569819\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1569819","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大约50%的复发性妊娠丢失(RPL)病例仍然无法解释,关于特发性RPL的有效治疗缺乏共识。我们使用网络荟萃分析来评估用于特发性RPL妇女的几种预防性治疗干预措施的疗效。材料和方法:我们对几个数据库从建立到2023年7月20日进行了系统的文献检索。关键文章的参考文献也被手工搜索。随机对照试验评估任何预防性干预的有效性和安全性,对成年女性RPL进行了纳入。排除了已知RPL病因的研究。两名审稿人独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。主要结局是活产和流产率。次要结局包括严重不良/不良事件和试验中止。网络荟萃分析使用贝叶斯层次模型进行直接和间接比较。还评估了排名概率(通过累积排名曲线下的曲面评估[SUCRA])和证据确定性(通过分级建议评估,发展和评估[GRADE]评估)。结果:38项研究(6379名参与者)被评估。各干预措施之间的活产率没有统计学上的显著差异。对于这一结果,三种排名最高的干预措施是强的松+黄体酮+阿司匹林(83%),白细胞免疫治疗(74%)和强的松龙(65%)。接受黄体酮加人绒毛膜促性腺激素(而不是安慰剂)治疗的妇女流产几率增加(优势比[OR] 3.83, 95%可信区间[CrIs] 1.04-14.38)。对流产率排名最高的三种干预措施是泼尼松+黄体酮+阿司匹林(SUCRA = 81%)、羟氯喹(SUCRA = 79%)和脂内注射(SUCRA = 65%)。总的来说,在安慰剂组,59%(95%置信区间[CI] 51-67;I2 = 92%)的参与者成功活产,35% (95% CI 30-42, I2 = 86%)流产。我们没有发现统计学上显著差异的证据(前三种干预是低分子肝素、粒细胞集落刺激因子和白细胞免疫治疗)。结论:我们的结果表明,所分析的干预措施都不能改善特发性RPL妇女的活产率或减少流产率。系统综述注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero,标识符CRD42023455668。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of therapeutic interventions for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Approximately 50% of cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) remain unexplained, and there is a lack of consensus concerning the effective treatments for idiopathic RPL. We used network meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of several prophylactic therapeutic interventions used in women with idiopathic RPL.

Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases from their inceptions to 20 July 2023. References from key articles were also manually searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of any prophylactic intervention that were conducted in adult women with RPL were included. Studies with known causes of RPL were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were live births and miscarriage rates. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse/adverse events and trial discontinuation. The network meta-analyses used a Bayesian hierarchical model with direct and indirect comparisons. Rank probabilities (assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]) and certainty of evidence (assessed by Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were also assessed.

Results: Thirty-eight studies (6,379 participants) were evaluated. No statistically significant differences in live birth rates among the interventions were found. The three best-ranked interventions for this outcome were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (83%), leukocyte immune therapy (74%), and prednisolone (65%). Women who were treated with progesterone plus human chorionic gonadotrophin (instead of a placebo) presented an increase in miscarriage odds (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% credible intervals [CrIs] 1.04-14.38). The three best-ranked interventions for miscarriage rate were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (SUCRA = 81%), hydroxychloroquine (SUCRA = 79%), and intralipid (SUCRA = 65%). Overall, under placebo, 59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-67; I2 = 92%) of participants underwent successful live births, and 35% (95% CI 30-42, I2 = 86%) underwent miscarriages. We found no evidence of statistically significant differences between interventions (the top three interventions were low-molecular-weight heparin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and leukocyte immune therapy) in those who discontinued trial participation.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that none of the analyzed interventions led to improvements in the live birth rate or a reduction in the miscarriage rate in women with idiopathic RPL.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023455668.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
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