PeRinatal, neOnatal, and Maternal OuTcomEs with azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnancy and labour (PROMOTE-PROPHYLAXIS): systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-06-21 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102691
Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Jogender Kumar, Amol N Patil, Krishna Tiwari, Sakshi Sharma, Abhishek Anil, Aswini Saravanan, Mokanpally Sandeep, Shoban Babu Varthya, Surjit Singh, Molla Imaduddin Ahmed, Ahmad Najmi, Muhammad Aasim Shamim, Aravind Gandhi, Prakisini Satapathy, Ranjit Sah, Sarvesh Rustagi, Abhay M Gaidhane, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, Kuldeep Singh, Pradeep Dwivedi
{"title":"PeRinatal, neOnatal, and Maternal OuTcomEs with azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnancy and labour (PROMOTE-PROPHYLAXIS): systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Jogender Kumar, Amol N Patil, Krishna Tiwari, Sakshi Sharma, Abhishek Anil, Aswini Saravanan, Mokanpally Sandeep, Shoban Babu Varthya, Surjit Singh, Molla Imaduddin Ahmed, Ahmad Najmi, Muhammad Aasim Shamim, Aravind Gandhi, Prakisini Satapathy, Ranjit Sah, Sarvesh Rustagi, Abhay M Gaidhane, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, Kuldeep Singh, Pradeep Dwivedi","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Initial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed that prophylactic azithromycin in pregnant women improved maternal and neonatal outcomes; however, the recent evidence did not show any benefit to neonatal survival. There is conflicting evidence over the role of azithromycin prophylaxis in antenatal and intrapartum periods. We explored whether azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women improves maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For this systematic review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO [CRD42023411093], we searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, ProQuest, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries until 04/23/2024, for RCTs evaluating antenatal/intrapartum azithromycin prophylaxis against placebo/routine care in pregnant women. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Intrapartum and antenatal administration were assessed separately. We used random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Screening 2161 records retrieved 20 RCTs (56,381 participants). Intrapartum azithromycin may make little or no difference to neonatal mortality [5 RCTs, 44,436 participants; Risk Ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.20, <i>I</i> <sup><i>2</i></sup>  = 0%, very low certainty], and maternal mortality [3 RCTs, 44,131 participants, RR: 1.26, 0.65-2.42, <i>I</i> <sup><i>2</i></sup>  = 0%, low certainty]. Similarly, antenatal azithromycin may have little or no effect on neonatal mortality [3 RCTs; 5304 participants; RR: 0.74, 0.35-1.56, <i>I</i> <sup><i>2</i></sup>  = 43%, very-low certainty] and maternal mortality [3 RCTs; 8167 participants RR: 1.62, 0.67-3.91, <i>I</i> <sup><i>2</i></sup>  = 0%, low certainty]. There is no data on long-term adverse outcomes and antimicrobial resistance.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that intrapartum or antenatal azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women might not reduce maternal or neonatal mortality.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102691","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Initial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed that prophylactic azithromycin in pregnant women improved maternal and neonatal outcomes; however, the recent evidence did not show any benefit to neonatal survival. There is conflicting evidence over the role of azithromycin prophylaxis in antenatal and intrapartum periods. We explored whether azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women improves maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO [CRD42023411093], we searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, ProQuest, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries until 04/23/2024, for RCTs evaluating antenatal/intrapartum azithromycin prophylaxis against placebo/routine care in pregnant women. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Intrapartum and antenatal administration were assessed separately. We used random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

Findings: Screening 2161 records retrieved 20 RCTs (56,381 participants). Intrapartum azithromycin may make little or no difference to neonatal mortality [5 RCTs, 44,436 participants; Risk Ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.20, I 2  = 0%, very low certainty], and maternal mortality [3 RCTs, 44,131 participants, RR: 1.26, 0.65-2.42, I 2  = 0%, low certainty]. Similarly, antenatal azithromycin may have little or no effect on neonatal mortality [3 RCTs; 5304 participants; RR: 0.74, 0.35-1.56, I 2  = 43%, very-low certainty] and maternal mortality [3 RCTs; 8167 participants RR: 1.62, 0.67-3.91, I 2  = 0%, low certainty]. There is no data on long-term adverse outcomes and antimicrobial resistance.

Interpretation: Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that intrapartum or antenatal azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women might not reduce maternal or neonatal mortality.

Funding: None.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妊娠期和分娩期使用阿奇霉素预防的新生儿和孕产妇死亡率(PROMOTE-PROPHYLAXIS):系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:最初的随机对照试验(RCT)显示,孕妇预防性服用阿奇霉素可改善产妇和新生儿的预后;但最近的证据并未显示新生儿存活率有任何改善。关于阿奇霉素在产前和产中的预防作用,目前存在相互矛盾的证据。我们探讨了孕妇服用阿奇霉素是否能改善产妇和新生儿的预后:为了进行这项在 PROSPERO [CRD42023411093] 上注册的系统综述和荟萃分析,我们检索了 7 个数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Cochrane Library、EBSCOHost、ProQuest 和 Web of Science)和临床试验注册表(截止到 2024 年 4 月 23 日),以寻找评估孕妇产前/产期阿奇霉素预防与安慰剂/常规护理的 RCT。主要结果是新生儿死亡率。产中和产前用药分别进行了评估。我们采用了随机效应荟萃分析法。使用 Cochrane RoB 2 工具评估了偏倚风险。采用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性:筛查了 2161 条记录,检索到 20 项 RCT(56381 名参与者)。产前使用阿奇霉素对新生儿死亡率的影响很小或没有影响[5 项 RCT,44,436 名参与者;风险比 (RR):1.02,95% CI:1.02]:1.02,95% CI 0.86-1.20,I 2 = 0%,确定性极低],以及孕产妇死亡率[3 项研究,44 131 名参与者,RR:1.26,0.65-2.42,I 2 = 0%,确定性低]。同样,产前服用阿奇霉素对新生儿死亡率[3 项研究;5304 名参与者;RR:0.74,0.35-1.56,I 2 = 43%,极低确定性]和孕产妇死亡率[3 项研究;8167 名参与者 RR:1.62,0.67-3.91,I 2 = 0%,低确定性]可能影响很小或没有影响。没有关于长期不良后果和抗菌药耐药性的数据:低确定性到极低确定性的证据表明,孕妇产前或产后使用阿奇霉素预防可能不会降低孕产妇或新生儿死亡率:无。
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 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors associated with post-tuberculosis sequelae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CVN424, a GPR6 inverse agonist, for Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations: a double-blind, randomized, phase 2 trial. Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut microbiota in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an individual based analysis of publicly available data. The global burden of enteric fever, 2017-2021: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2021.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1