FDA approval for Makena, a drug used to reduce risk for preterm birth, has been formally withdrawn. The withdrawal also includes all generics (17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate [17-OHPC]). Regarding any current medication in distribution, the FDA states that “Patients who have questions should talk to their healthcare provider.” Both ACOG and SMFM have addressed the situation.
ACOG
Intramuscular 17-OHPC is not recommended for the primary prevention of preterm birth in patients with a history of spontaneous preterm birth
In summary, at this time, the body of evidence is equivocal regarding the effectiveness of 17-OHPC, and the referenced FDA action will limit access to 17-OHPC for patients
SMFM
We agree with the FDA determination and discourage continued prescribing of 17-OHPC, including through compounding pharmacies
We agree with the FDA that there is no evidence of benefit with continued treatment
Patients currently receiving 17-OHPC can be counseled that the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has not identified evidence of harm from discontinuation prior to 37 weeks of gestation
RESEARCH SUMMARY:
The authors of the PROLONG trial (Progestin’s Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) reported on the use of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) for the treatment of preterm birth (PTB)
In this study population, 250 mg 17-OHPC did not decrease recurrent PTB and was not associated with increased fetal/early infant death
On October 29, 2019, the FDA advisory committee recommended that the drug be withdrawn from the market (9 to 7 vote). On October 5, 2020, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) proposed that Makena be withdrawn from the market. At that time, the decision was made to hold further meetings and discussions. Based upon further follow-up, the CDER briefing materials for the Advisory Committee meeting (October 17-19, 2022) states
Makena has not been shown to improve neonatal outcomes from premature birth, is no longer shown to be effective for its approved use, and has known risks
The 1,708-person confirmatory trial designed to verify Makena’s clinical benefit instead failed to show that Makena has any benefit to newborns. Data from this trial, taken together with other evidence, also fail to show that Makena reduces the risk of recurrent preterm birth
For these and other reasons detailed herein, Makena should be withdrawn from the market
Background to PROLONG Trial
A previous study, on behalf of the NICHD, demonstrated success of IM 17-OHPC in preventing PTB (see ‘Learn More – Primary Sources)
Meis et al. (NEJM, 2003): 250 mg IM 17-OHPC reduced recurrent preterm birth (PTB) in women with a prior spontaneous PTB (SPTB)
Relative risk [RR] 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54–0.81)
The current PROLONG study was a ‘confirmatory trial’, performed with FDA input as a requirement for the FDA accelerated approval pathway
PROLONG Methods
Double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT)
Participants
≥18 years
Singleton pregnancy
Currently 16w0d to 20w6d
Previous history of singleton SPTB (birth between 20w0d and 36w6d following preterm labor or PROM)
Groups (IM injection 1 in upper outer quadrant of the gluteus maximus) weekly until delivery or 36 weeks
17-OHPC (250 mg)
Placebo
Stratified by
Study site
GA at randomization
Primary outcomes
PTB < 35 weeks
Composite neonatal morbidity and mortality index
PROLONG Results
PTB < 35w0d (p=0.72)
17-OHPC: 11.0%
Placebo: 11.5%
Relative risk (RR) 0.95 (95% CI, 0.71–1.26)
Neonatal composite index (p=0.73)
17-OHPC 5.6%
Placebo 5.0%
RR 1.12 (95% CI, 0.70–1.66)
Note: No differences seen in any of the individual components that were part of the composite index
KEY POINTS:
Sibai et al. Obstet Gynecol, 2020
Meis Trial
Well designed and conducted
Highly statistically significant results
Prespecified criterion threshold of alpha=0.015 was met regarding benefit of 17-OHPC
Subgroup analysis: Number of prior preterm birth | Race | Marital status | Smoking or substance use
Confirmed generalizability
Prolong Trial
Population studied was very different from that of the Meis trial (non-US)
Trial is underpowered based on observed event rates
For 90% power, PROLONG required 3,600 women for preterm birth <35 weeks and 6,000 women for neonatal composite outcome
PROLONG not powered for subgroup analysis, but Meis et al. did look at US subgroup and found that while not statistically significant
Direction and magnitude of effect <32 weeks and neonatal composite index were similar to the Meis trial
Authors’ Conclusion
We assert PROLONG was underpowered, based on substantially lower observed preterm birth rates than anticipated, and therefore was a false-negative study, rather than the Meis trial being a false-positive study
Careful assessment of these two trials is critical as removal of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate from the U.S. marketplace may have substantial effects on public health
ACOG defines cervical insufficiency as “the inability of the uterine cervix to retain a pregnancy in the absence of the signs and symptoms of clinical contractions, or labor, or both in the second trimester.” In addition, ACOG separates out indication for cerclage in to 3 categories
History: ≥1 of the following
Second trimester pregnancy losses related to painless cervical dilation and no history of labor or abruption
Previous second trimester cerclage for painless cervical dilation
Physical Examination: Also known as ‘physical examination–indicated cerclage’, ‘rescue cerclage’ and ’emergency cerclage’
Patient presents with painless second trimester cervical dilation
Ultrasound: Cervical length shortening and history of preterm birth
Singleton pregnancy
Prior spontaneous preterm birth (<34 weeks)
Cervical length: <25 mm (at <24 weeks)
SMFM states that cerclages are effective in woman based on the following indications:
History indicated: 3 or more PTBs or second-trimester losses.
Ultrasound indicated: ≥1 early PTB (defined as delivery between 17w to 33w6d), and cervical length (CL) <25 mm on transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) before 24 weeks
Timing of Cerclage Placement
History-indicated cerclage
Place between 12 and 14 weeks after confirmation of pregnancy viability
Ultrasound or exam-indicated cerclage
May be placed prior to 23 weeks
Risk Factors
Prior PTB
Repeated cervical dilation
Cervical procedures (including cone and LEEP)
Cervical laceration
Urogenital abnormalities
SYNOPSIS:
Clinically, cervical insufficiency is painless dilation and recurrent mid-trimester losses without signs of preterm labor (PTL), PPROM, or infection. Patient history may include superimposed symptoms (i.e. bleeding, pressure), therefore a judicious review of records is advised. Those with a history of prior preterm birth can benefit from cervical length screening to appropriate guide selected patients for cerclage.
KEY POINTS:
Ultrasound Indicated Cerclage with Prior History of Preterm Birth or Second Trimester Losses (SMFM)
CL surveillance
Begin at 16 weeks and end at 24 weeks
Perform every 1 to 2 weeks
Offer cerclage when
CL <25 mm prior to 23w0d weeks and
History of spontaneous PTB at 17w0d to 33w6d
Evidence from research studies
There is no difference in efficacy of McDonald versus Shirodkar techniques
‘Emergency’ Cerclage (Exam indicated)
There is literature, including a meta-analysis (Obstet Gynecol, 2015), to support ’emergency’ or ‘rescue’ cerclage
Neonatal survival
Cerclage: 71% survival
No cerclage: 43% survival
Relative risk 1.65 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.28)
Prolongation of pregnancy
Mean difference: 33.98 days (95% CI, 17.88 to 50.08)
Authors note significant limitations including quality of data and only 1 RCT included
After clinical examination to rule out uterine activity, or intraamniotic infection, or both, physical examination-indicated cerclage placement (if technically feasible) in patients with singleton gestations who have cervical change of the internal os may be beneficial
Additional Interventions
Evidence does not support use of the following after cerclage placement
Serial cervical length measurements
Antibiotics
Prophylactic tocolysis
Cerclage Removal
Remove transvaginal McDonald cerclage at 36 to 37 weeks
Cesarean delivery planned for ≥39 weeks
May be removed at time of delivery
Consider possibility of spontaneous labor between 37 and 39 weeks
McDonald cerclage may be removed in the office
PPROM
Removal or retention “is reasonable”
Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis >7 days not recommended if suture is retained
Preterm labor
Diagnosis may be more difficult with cerclage in place
Routine management of preterm labor should be followed for patients with symptomatic preterm labor
If cervical change, painful contractions, or vaginal bleeding progress, cerclage removal is recommended
OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.
Disclosure of Unlabeled Use
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Disclaimer
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
Jointly provided by
NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS
It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan
You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site