Effectiveness and safety of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban versus beta‐adrenergic agonists in the treatment of preterm labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban with conventional beta‐adrenergic agonist (beta‐agonist) therapy in the treatment of preterm labour. Design Three multinational, multicentre, double‐blind, randomised, controlled trials. Setting Hospitals in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the UK. Population Women diagnosed with preterm labour at 23–33 completed weeks of gestation. Methods Seven hundred and forty‐two women were randomised; 733 received atosiban (n=363; intravenous (iv) bolus dose of 6.75 mg, then 300 μg/minute iv. for 3h and 100 μg/min iv thereafter) or beta‐agonist (n=379; ritodrine, salbutamol or terbutaline iv; dose titrated) for at least 18h and up to 48 hours. Uterine contraction rate, cervical dilatation and effacement were used to assess progression of labour. An all patients treated analysis, using the Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel test, was performed. Main outcome measures Tocolytic effectiveness was assessed in terms of the number of women undelivered after 48 hours and seven days. Safety was assessed in terms of maternal side effects and neonatal morbidity. Results There were no significant differences between atosiban and β‐agonists in delaying delivery for 48h (88.1% vs 88.9%; P=0.99) or seven days (79.7% versus 77.6%; P=0.28). Tocolytic effectiveness was also similar in terms of mean [SD] gestational age at delivery (35.8 [3.9] weeks vs 35.5 [4.1] weeks) and mean [SD] birthweight (2491 [813] g versus 2461 [831] g). Maternal side effects, particularly cardiovascular adverse events (8.3% vs 81.2%, P < 0.001), were reported more frequently in women given β‐agonists, resulting in more treatment discontinuations due to side effects (1.1% vs 15.4%, P=0.0001). No statistical differences in neonatal/infant outcomes were observed with either study medication. Conclusions In the largest study of tocolytic therapy to date, atosiban was comparable in clinical effectiveness to conventional beta‐agonist therapy, but was associated with fewer maternal cardiovascular side effects. We conclude that atosiban has clinical advantages over current tocolytic therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".