Propranolol for Induction of Labor in Nulliparas trial a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Drug-Induced Hypoglycemia in Neonates Born to Nondiabetic Women Treated with Medications during the Pregnancy or the Labor: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The prompt identification of at-risk newborns for drug-induced hypoglycemia can minimize the risk for adverse side effects, inappropriate investigations, and considerable unnecessary costs. Existing literature discusses drug-induced hypoglycemia, but a systematic description of neonatal hypoglycemia induced or exacerbated by maternal medications is missing. We reviewed the association between neonatal hypoglycemia and maternal medications. We systematically searched the literature according to the PICOS model on drug-induced hypoglycemia in neonates born to nondiabetic women treated with medications during the pregnancy or the labor. The main outcomes of the review were: (1) prevalence of hypoglycemia, (2) risk factors and potential confounders, (3) time at onset and severity of hypoglycemia, (4) dose-response gradient, (5) metabolic features of hypoglycemia, (6) modalities to treat hypoglycemia, and (7) quality of the studies. We included 69 studies in this review and we identified 11 groups of maternal drugs related to neonatal hypoglycemia. Results were classified for each outcome. Our review aims at supporting clinicians in the identification of the newborn at risk for hypoglycemia and in the differential diagnosis of neonatal hypoglycemia. Further studies are necessary to assess the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia associated with common maternal medications. KEY POINTS: · A systematic description of neonatal hypoglycemia induced or exacerbated by maternal medications is missing.. · In our review we identified 11 groups of maternal drugs related to neonatal hypoglycemia.. · Our review aims at supporting clinicians in the identification of the newborn at risk for hypoglycemia..

Association between intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for Group B Streptococcus colonization and clinical chorioamnionitis among patients undergoing induction of labor at term

BACKGROUND

Rectovaginal colonization with Group B Streptococcus during pregnancy has historically been shown to be associated with an increased risk of clinical chorioamnionitis and peripartum infectious morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

Newer observational data in the era of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis suggest a possible reversal of this association; however, it is unclear if this is related to differences in labor management for those with and without Group B Streptococcus colonization. We therefore sought to assess the association between intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for Group B Streptococcus colonization and clinical chorioamnionitis within the context of a randomized induction of labor trial with a standardized labor protocol.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed an exploratory secondary analysis of a randomized trial of patients undergoing term induction at a tertiary care center. Patients received third trimester Group B Streptococcus screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis as routine care. Group B Streptococcus detection was performed using a carrot broth-enhanced subculture to Group B Streptococcus Detect approach (Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, CA). Labor management was protocolized per the trial. Patients with unknown Group B Streptococcus status or who did not receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, if indicated, were excluded. The primary outcome was diagnosis of clinical chorioamnionitis, compared between patients who received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for known Group B Streptococcus positive status (by culture, history, or Group B Streptococcus bacteriuria) and those who were Group B Streptococcus negative and did not receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included postpartum endometritis, wound infection, a composite maternal peripartum infectious morbidity, and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients were enrolled in the trial. Of these, 466 had a known Group B Streptococcus status and received or did not receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis accordingly and were included in this analysis: 292 (62.7%) were Group B Streptococcus negative and did not receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and 174 (37.3%) were Group B Streptococcus positive and received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. The majority of patients were Non-Hispanic Black (78.1%) and nulliparous (59.7%). There were no differences in demographic, clinical, induction or labor characteristics between groups. Patients who were Group B Streptococcus positive had a 49% lower rate of clinical chorioamnionitis (8.1% vs 14.7%, odds ratio, 0.51; P=.03) and a lower rate of peripartum infectious morbidity (8.1% vs 15.8%, odds ratio, 0.47; P=.02) compared to those who were Group B Streptococcus negative. Infants born to patients who were Group B Streptococcus positive were significantly less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (3.4% vs 15.1%, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Although Group B Streptococcus colonization has historically been considered a risk factor for clinical chorioamnionitis, in the era of universal antibiotic prophylaxis for Group B Streptococcus positive patients, our findings support the point that intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for Group B Streptococcus positivity is associated with lower rates of clinical chorioamnionitis and peripartum infectious morbidity among patients undergoing induction with protocolized labor management. These findings demonstrate that intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for Group B Streptococcus may protect against perinatal infectious morbidity, a phenomenon that warrants further investigation.

Efficacy of Propranolol to Reduce Cesarean Delivery in Prolonged Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with prolonged labor randomized to receive intravenous (IV) propranolol compared with placebo.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted at two hospitals within a large academic health system. Eligible patients were at 36 weeks or more with a singleton gestation and prolonged labor , defined as: 1) prolonged latent phase of labor (dilation less than 6 cm after 8 hours or more with ruptured membranes and receiving oxytocin infusion) or 2) prolonged active phase of labor (dilation 6 cm or greater and less than 1-cm cervical dilation change over 2 hours or more with ruptured membranes and receiving oxytocin infusion). Patients were excluded for severe preeclampsia, maternal heart rate less than 70 beats per minute, maternal blood pressure less than 90/50 mm Hg, asthma, diabetes requiring insulin during labor, or a cardiac contraindication to β-blockade. Patients were randomized to propranolol (2 mg IV) compared with placebo (2 mL normal saline IV), with one possible repeat dose. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery; secondary outcomes included labor duration, shoulder dystocia, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. With an estimated cesarean delivery rate of 45%, α 0.05, and 80% power, we required 163 patients per group to detect a 15% absolute reduction in cesarean delivery rate. A planned interim analysis was performed, and the trial was stopped for futility.

RESULTS

From July 2020 to June 2022, 349 patients were eligible and approached; 164 were enrolled and randomized, with 84 in the propranolol group and 80 in the placebo group. The rate of cesarean delivery was not different between groups (57.1% propranolol vs 57.5% placebo, relative risk [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.29). Results were similar by subgroup of prolonged latent (n=123) and active (n=41) phases of labor and nulliparous (n=137) and multiparous (n=27) patients. Though not statistically significant, the frequency of postpartum hemorrhage was higher in the propranolol group (20% vs 10%, RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.93-4.43).

CONCLUSION

In this multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference in cesarean delivery rate for patients who received propranolol compared with those who received placebo for management of prolonged labor.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04299438.

A pilot study to compare propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol and placebo for induction of labor in primigravidae; a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Induction of labor is the most common obstetric procedure in daily practice. Introducing propranolol as a new drug to augment the action of prostaglandins will help in the induction process and decrease CS rates. Several researchers have used propranolol in the augmentation of labor.

AIM

This pilot study compares propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction in primigravids.

METHODS

This is a Randomized clinical trial, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at Ain Shams University Maternity hospital. This study included 128 pregnant full-term primigravid women candidates for labor induction, randomized into two groups. All candidates underwent labor induction with 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol. Group I received 20 mg of oral propranolol tablets, while group II received sugary pills as a placebo. Candidates who responded successfully to induction were assessed for possible augmentation of labor by amniotomy or oxytocin infusion. The Primary outcome was induction to delivery interval, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of the latent phase, mode of delivery, and APGAR score of the neonate.

RESULTS

The induction-delivery time was (11.8 ± 8.1 h. vs. 12.6 ± 8.9 h., P value = 0.027) and the duration of the latent phase of labor (7.9 ± 5.6 h. vs. 9.2 ± 6.03 h., P value = 0.017) were significantly shorter in the group of misoprostol and propranolol compared to the group of misoprostol and placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups' mode of delivery, indications for cesarean section, misoprostol, and oxytocin doses, or neonatal outcome. (P value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Propranolol, when used with misoprostol for induction of labor, results in augmentation of action of misoprostol and a significantly shorter induction-delivery interval.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We retrospectively registered this trial in clinicaltrial.gov on 01/09/2020 (NCT04533841). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533841.

The Risk for Neonatal Hypoglycemia and Bradycardia after Beta-Blocker Use during Pregnancy or Lactation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Beta-blockers are often used during pregnancy to treat cardiovascular diseases. The described neonatal side effects of maternal beta-blocker use are hypoglycemia and bradycardia, but the evidence base for these is yet to be evaluated comprehensively. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the potential increased risk for hypoglycemia and bradycardia in neonates exposed to beta-blockers in utero or during lactation. A systematic search of English-language human studies was conducted until 21 April 2021. Both observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating hypoglycemia and/or bradycardia in neonates following beta-blocker exposure during pregnancy and lactation were included. All articles were screened by two authors independently and eligible studies were included. Pair-wise and proportion-based meta-analysis was conducted and the certainty of evidence (CoE) was performed by standard methodologies. Of the 1.043 screened articles, 55 were included in this systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed a probable risk of hypoglycemia (CoE—Moderate) and possible risk of bradycardia (CoE—Low) in neonates upon fetal beta-blocker exposure. Therefore, we suggest the monitoring of glucose levels in exposed neonates until 24 h after birth. Due to the limited clinical implication, monitoring of the heart rate could be considered for 24 h. We call for future studies to substantiate our findings.

Innovations in the prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: Analysis of a novel medicines development pipeline database

Background

A significant barrier to improving prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a lack of innovative medicines that meet the needs of women and providers, particularly those in low‐and middle‐income countries (LMICs). The Accelerating Innovation for Mothers (AIM) project established a new database of candidate medicines under development for five pregnancy‐related conditions between 2000 and 2021.

Objective

To systematically identify and rank candidates for prevention and treatment of PPH.

Search Strategy

Adis Insight, Pharmaprojects, WHO ICTRP, PubMed, and grant databases were searched to develop the AIM database.

Selection Criteria

AIM database was searched for candidates being evaluated for PPH prevention and treatment, regardless of phase.

Data Collection and Analysis

Candidates were ranked as high, medium, or low potential based on prespecified criteria. Analysis was primarily descriptive, describing candidates and development potential.

Main Results

Of the 444 unique candidates, only 39 pertained to PPH. One was high potential (heat‐stable/inhaled oxytocin) and three were medium potential (melatonin, vasopressin and dofetilide via nanoparticle delivery).

Conclusion

The pipeline for new PPH medicines is concerningly limited, lacking diversity, and showing little evidence of novel technologies. Without significant investment in early‐phase research, it is unlikely that new products will emerge.

A new database of maternal medicine development shows few new PPH candidates are in the pipeline. Significant investment is needed, particularly in early‐phase research.