Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 22;16(3):e0248774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248774

Antenatal corticosteroids for impending late preterm (34-36+6 weeks) deliveries—A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Mangesh Deshmukh 1,2,3,¤a,*,#, Sanjay Patole 3,4,¤b,*,#
Editor: Georg M Schmölzer5
PMCID: PMC7984612  PMID: 33750966

Abstract

Background

Administration of antenatal corticosteroids (ANC) for impending preterm delivery beyond 34 weeks of gestation continues to be a controversial issue despite various guidelines for obstetricians and gynaecologists.

Objective

To compare outcomes following exposure to ANC for infants born between 34–36+6 weeks’ gestation.

Methods

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting neonatal outcomes after ANC exposure between 34–36+6 weeks’ gestation using Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central library and Google Scholar were searched in May 2020. Primary outcomes: (1) Need for respiratory support (Mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen (2) Hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnoea of newborn (TTN), need for neonatal resuscitation at birth [only in the delivery room immediately after birth (not in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)], admission to NICU, mortality and developmental follow up. Level of evidence (LOE) was summarised by GRADE guidelines.

Main results

Seven RCTs (N = 4144) with low to high risk of bias were included. Only one RCT was from high income countries, Meta-analysis (random-effects model) showed (1) reduced need for respiratory support [5 RCTs (N = 3844); RR = 0.68 (0.47–0.98), p = 0.04; I2 = 55%; LOE: Moderate] and (2) higher risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia [4 RCTs (N = 3604); RR = 1.61(1.38–1.87), p<0.00001; I2 = 0%; LOE: High] after ANC exposure. Neonates exposed to ANC had reduced need for resuscitation at birth. The incidence of RDS, TTN and surfactant therapy did not differ significantly. None of the included studies reported long-term developmental follow up.

Conclusions

Moderate quality evidence indicates that ANC exposure reduced need for respiratory support, and increased the risk of hypoglycaemia in late preterm neonates. Large definitive trials with adequate follow up for neurodevelopmental outcomes are required to assess benefits and risks of ANC in this population.

Introduction

Administration of antenatal corticosteroids (ANC) is standard practice for threatened preterm delivery between 24–34 weeks’ gestation. Based on the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most of the Obstetric and Gynaecological College/Society guidelines recommend ANC between 24–34 weeks of gestation [13]. However administration of ANC beyond 34 weeks of gestation continues to be a controversial issue, more so for late preterm gestations from 34 to 36+6 weeks.

Late preterm neonates (LPNs) represent ~70% of total preterm births, which account for ~10% of total births [4]. Compared to neonates born at term (37–40 weeks’ gestation), LPNs are at risk of complications such as the need for resuscitation at birth, respiratory distress, hypothermia, and hypoglycaemia. Considering the size of their population, LPNs impose an enormous burden on the health system [5]. A population-based prospective study from UK (N = 1146) found that LPNs are more likely to require resuscitation (17.5% vs 7.4%), respiratory (11.8% vs 0.9%) and nutritional support (3.5% vs 0.3%) and less likely to be fed breast milk (64.2% vs 72.2%) compared to term neonates [6]. Furthermore, LPNs are at six to seven-fold higher risk of complications including transient tachypnoea of newborn (TTN) and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) compared to term neonates [7, 8]. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for such complications inevitably means separating the mother-infant dyad with the risk of lactation failure and increased parental anxiety. The average duration of hospital stay has been reported to be longer (8.8 vs. 2.2 days), accounting for 10-fold higher cost of care in LPNs vs. term neonates [9]. Overall, the importance of reducing the enormous health burden especially due to respiratory complications in LPNs cannot be overemphasised.

Based on the results of the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids (ALPS) study, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ (ACOG) guidelines recommend ANC between 34–36+6 weeks of gestation for reducing neonatal respiratory morbidity, particularly TTN [2, 10]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis including 3 RCTs (n = 3200) found that ANC reduced the risk of TTN (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.92), severe RDS (RR: 0.60, CI: 0.33–0.94), and need for surfactant (RR: 0.61CI: 0.38 to 0.99) in LPNs. However, the risk of hypoglycaemia was significantly higher (RR: 1.61, CI: 1.38–1.87) in neonates exposed to ANC [11]. Data on these outcomes was available from only 2 of the 3 included RCTs with the ALPS study accounting for 2800 of the 3200 neonates included in this meta-analysis [10]. Importantly, none of these trials reported neonatal long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Considering the difficulties in balancing short-term gains vs. potentially serious long-term adverse effects there is no international consensus for prophylactic ANC at 34 to 36 weeks’ gestation despite the ACOG recommendations [12, 13]. Given the clinical significance of this issue, we aimed to conduct a systematic review on the effects of ANC on LPNs.

Materials and methods

The Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct and report this systematic review respectively [14, 15]. Ethics approval was not required. We have not registered the protocol with PROSPERO or any other database.

Participants

Inclusion criteria

Neonates born between (34–36+6) weeks of gestation.

Exclusion criteria

Major chromosomal and congenital anomalies.

Intervention

Antenatal glucocorticosteroids of any type (e.g. Betamethasone, Dexamethasone), dose (single/multiple), and duration vs. placebo/control.

Outcomes

Primary. (1) Need for any respiratory support (Mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen (2) Hypoglycaemia: Blood glucose level <2.6 mmol/l or as defined by the authors of included studies.

Secondary. (1) Need for resuscitation at birth: Requirement of any intervention including positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen (defined as the free flow of oxygen near the nostrils by a catheter or mask) only in the delivery room immediately after birth (not in NICU) (2) Admission to NICU (3) TTN: Tachypnoea, chest x-ray showing increased perihilar intestinal marking or fluid in the fissure. (4) RDS: Clinical signs of respiratory distress such as tachypnoea, rib recessions, grunt, requirement of oxygen, with reticulogranular pattern on chest x-ray (5) Mortality: Death before discharge from the NICU during the first admission after birth (6) Need for mechanical ventilation (7) Need for surfactant: (8) Developmental follow up outcomes (9) Adverse effects including sepsis, and seizures.

Search strategy

We searched MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from1980), CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials initially in Dec 2019 and May 2020 for published studies. We used the following search terms in various combinations: a) Population: Neonate(s), newborn(s), infant*, premature, late preterm b) Intervention: Antenatal corticosteroids, adrenocortical stimulating hormone, Betamethasone, Celestone, Dexamethasone, c) Publication type: “Randomized controlled Trial, “Controlled Trial”, or “Clinical Trial”. Online abstracts of Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) meetings were reviewed from 2002. Abstracts of conference proceedings including Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ), European Academy of Paediatric Societies, and the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society were searched in EMBASE. We searched ‘Google Scholar’ for articles that might not have been cited in the standard medical databases. The reference lists of identified studies and reviews were searched to identify additional eligible studies. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov and Australian New Zealand trial registry (www.anzctr.org.au) for ongoing studies. No language restriction was applied. Reviewers MD, SP and RM (librarian) conducted the literature search independently.

Study selection

Both reviewers (MD and SP) independently selected studies for inclusion in the review. First, the records were screened according to the titles and abstracts. Full texts of the selected articles were then retrieved and assessed for inclusion according to the pre-specified selection criteria.

Data extraction and management

Reviewers MD and SP extracted the data independently, using a data collection form. We included the information about authors, year of publication, the country where the study was conducted, setting, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participants characteristics, type of steroids (betamethasone or dexamethasone) used, outcome measures (need for respiratory support, hypoglycaemia, RDS, TTN, neonatal resuscitation, admission to neonatal unit, mortality and developmental follow up) and their definitions. We checked the number of participants allocated to each arm, methods of analysis, loss to follow up and reasons for the same. For dichotomous outcomes, the number of patients with the event and the number of patients analysed in each treatment group was recorded. For continuous outcomes, we recorded the mean and standard deviations. Both reviewers verified the information about study design and outcomes. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Assessment of Risk of Bias (ROB)

Both reviewers (MD and SP) assessed the ROB in each included trial for the following seven components: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other biases. For each of these components, they assigned ratings of high, low or unclear ROB [16]. Differences in judgements were resolved by discussion.

Data synthesis

Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 [Cochrane Collaboration, Nordic Cochrane Centre], with ‘intention to treat analysis’. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed by visual examination of the forest plot to check for overlapping of confidence intervals (CI), Chi2 test and I2 statistics. We used random-effects model (REM) assuming high heterogeneity. However, results were also compared using fixed-effect model (FEM). Categorical and continuous measures of effect size were expressed as risk difference (RR) (Mantel Haenszel method) and mean difference (MD) (Inverse Variance method) respectively. Sensitivity analysis was planned for studies with low ROB. Subgroup analyses were planned by neonatal gestation at birth (34, 35, 36 weeks), mode of delivery (vaginal or caesarean section) and presence of maternal gestational diabetes.

Assessment of publication bias

We planned to assess publication bias using a funnel plot [17].

Grading the evidence and summary of findings

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for assessment and Grade pro guidelines development tool to create the summary of findings table for reporting the level of evidence (LOE) [18, 19]. Evidence from RCTs was considered as high quality. We graded the evidence in the following domains: ROB, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. The evidence was downgraded one level for serious and two levels for very serious limitation.

Results

The literature search retrieved 830 potentially relevant citations (Fig 1). Total of 203 citations removed as duplicate. After carefully reviewing the abstracts and titles 598 citations were excluded. Total 29 citations were read in details and 22 were excluded for reasons mentioned in the flow chart. Finally, 7 RCTs including 4144 neonates whose mothers received ANC between 34–36+6 weeks’ gestation were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review [10, 2025]. The type, dose and duration of ANC prophylaxis varied in these 7 RCTs (Dexamethasone: 4, Betamethasone: 3). Five studies provided data for the primary outcome of need for any respiratory support [10, 2022, 25] whereas only 4 reported on hypoglycemia [10, 20, 21, 25]. The ALPS study by Gyamfi-Bannerman provided data for all outcomes included in this review [10]. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. The trials by Gyamfi-Bannerman and Porto carried low ROB in most of the domains [10, 20] whereas those by Attawattanakul, Balci, Kasab, Mirzamoradi and Ontela, carried high to unclear ROB [2125] (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Flow chart of study selection process after screening of electronic search.

Fig 1

Table 1. Characteristics of included randomised control trials*.

Studies Type of steroid Sample size Main outcomes Results
Gyamifi-Bannerman 2016
USA
Betamethasone 12mg/24 hrly x 2days N:2827
ANC:1427
C:1400
1-Neonatal composite of treatment in the first 72 hours consists of one of the following
a-Requirement of CPAP or HFNC for 2 hours,
b- Supplemental oxygen with a Fio2≥ 0.30 for at least 4 hours, c- ECMO, or mechanical ventilation
d- Stillbirth or neonatal death within 72 hours after delivery.
2- Hypoglycemia: Blood glucose levels 2.2 mmol
per litre (<40 mg per decilitre) at any time.
1-Neonatal composite of treatment: Reduced with ANC; RR: 0.80(0.66–0.97); P = 0.02
2-Hypoglycemia: High in ANC RR:1.60(1.37–1.87); P<0.001
Porto 2011
Brazil
Betamethasone 12mg/24 hrly x 2days N:320
ANC:163
C:157
Incidence of respiratory disorders: RDS or TTN, defined as presence of respiratory distress (tachypnoea, expiratory grunting, chest wall retractions, flaring of the nostrils, cyanosis, and increasing requirement of oxygen) for >2 hours after birth. Respiratory disorders: No difference in two groups; Adjusted RR: 1.12 (0.74 to 1.70
Balci 2010
Turkey
Betamethasone 12mg as single dose N:100
ANC:50
C:50
Requirement of resuscitation, RDS, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min Requirement of resuscitation: ANC (14%) Vs control (32%); p = 0.032
RDS: ANC (4%) vs Control (16%); p = 0.046
Apgar Score: Better with ANC (p = 0.06 at 1 minutes and p<0.001 at 5 min)
Kasab 2013
Egypt
Dexamethasone
12mg IM/12hrly x 2 doses
N:200
ANC:100
C:100
Requirement of resuscitation, RDS, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min Need for resuscitation: ANC (14%) Vs control 32 (32%); p = 0.013
RDS: ANC (4%) vs Control (16%); p = 0.021
Apgar score: Better with ANC (1- and 5-minutes P<0.05).
Mirzamoradi 2019
Iran
Dexamethasone
12mg IM/24hrly x 2 doses
N:240
ANC:120
C:120
Need for respiratory support by 72 h of life consisting of ≥1 of the following; CPAP or HFNC for ≥ 2 hours, RDS or need for ventilation. Need for respiratory support: Significantly less in ANC group.
Respiratory morbidity: Significantly less in ANC (16%) vs Control (50%); p<001.
Ontela 2018
India
Dexamethasone
6mg IM/12hrly x 4 doses
N:310
ANC:155
C:155
Respiratory morbidities (TTN, RDS).
TTN: Signs of respiratory distress at birth without significant X ray changes or with hyperinflation/ interlobar fluid that resolved in < 72 hours.
RDS: Signs of respiratory distress at birth along with decreased air entry or diffuse granular infiltrates on X ray.
Respiratory morbidities: No difference between the two groups; RR 0.91 (0.7–1.2); P = 0.32
Attawattanakul 2015
Thailand
Dexamethasone
6mg IM/12hrly x 4 doses
N:194
ANC:96
C:98
Incidence of respiratory distress: Grunting, flaring, tachypnoea > 60/min, retraction, and/or need for oxygen > 2 hours after birth. Respiratory distress: Significantly less with ANC; RR 0.40, (0.17 to 0.94); p = 0.03

ANC: Antenatal corticosteroids, C: Control, CI: Confidence interval, CPAP: Continuous positive airway pressure, HFNC: High flow nasal cannula, ECMO: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation OR: Odds ratio, RR: Relative risk, RDS- Respiratory distress syndrome, TTN- Transient tachypnoea of newborn

*Note- Neurodevelopment outcomes have not been reported by any of the included studies.

Fig 2. Risk of bias summary.

Fig 2

Primary outcomes

  1. Need for any respiratory support: Five RCTs that included 3844 neonates (ANC: 1941, Control: 1903) reported this outcome [10, 2022, 25]. Need for any respiratory support was significantly less in the ANC vs. control group neonates [ANC: 11% vs. Control: 16%]. Meta-analysis confirmed these findings [RR = 0.68(0.47–0.98), p = 0.04; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 8.84, I2 = 55%; LOE: Moderate] (Fig 2). The number needed to treat (NNT) for preventing one case of respiratory support was 20 (Fig 3).

  2. Hypoglycaemia: Four studies that reported this outcome included 3604 neonates (ANC: 1821, Control: 1783) [10, 20, 21, 25]. Incidence of hypoglycaemia was significantly high in the ANC vs. control group (ANC: 20% vs. Control: 12.5%). Meta-analysis confirmed these findings [RR = 1.61(1.38–1.87), p<0.00001; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.40, I2 = 0%; LOE: High] (Fig 3). The number needed for harm for hypoglycemia was 13 (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Effect of ANC on need for any respiratory support.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Effect of ANC on hypoglycemia.

Fig 4

Secondary outcomes

  1. Need for resuscitation at birth [only in delivery room immediately after birth (not in NICU)]: The data for this outcome was available from 6 studies that included 3871 neonates (ANC: 1948, Control: 1923) [10, 2125]. Need for resuscitation at birth was significantly less in the ANC vs. control group neonates [ANC: 10% vs. Control: 16.5%]. Meta-analysis confirmed these findings [RR = 0.63(0.42–0.95), p = 0.03; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 8.73, I2 = 43%; LOE: Low]. (S1 Fig) NNT for this outcome was 16.

  2. Admission to NICU: Six studies that reported this outcome included 3944 neonates (ANC: 1991, Control: 1953) [10, 2022, 24, 25]. There was no difference in admission to NICU in the ANC vs. control group neonates (ANC: 32% vs. Control: 38%). Meta-analysis confirmed these findings [RR = 0.84 (0.59–1.19), p = 0.32; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 18.44, I2 = 73%; LOE: Low]. (S2 Fig)

  3. TTN: The incidence of TTN was reported in 5 RCTs including 3844 neonates (ANC: 1941, C: 1903) [10, 2022, 25]. TTN was less in the ANC vs. control group (ANC: 10% vs. Control: 11.5 but was not statistically significant [RR = 0.90 (0.66–1.24) p = 0.53; Chi2 = 7.57, I2 = 47%; LOE: Low]. (S3 Fig)

  4. RDS: All seven studies reported this outcome included 4143 neonates (ANC: 2090, C: 2053) [10, 2025]. Incidence of RDS was less in the ANC vs. control group (ANC: 4% vs. Control:7%) but was not statistically significant [RR = 0.64 (0.35–1.17), p = 0.15; Chi2 = 13.55, I2 = 56%; LOE: Low]. (S4 Fig)

  5. Mortality: Three studies that reported this outcome included 3200 neonates (ANC: 1821, Control: 1783) [10, 20, 24]. Mortality was similar in the ANC vs. control group neonates (ANC: 1% vs. Control: 1%). Meta-analysis confirmed these findings [RR = 0.94 (0.04–23.80), p = 0.97; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.27, I2 = 56%; LOE: Very Low]. (S5 Fig)

  6. Need for mechanical ventilation: The data for this outcome was available from 4 studies that included 3650 neonates (ANC: 1845, Control: 1805) [10, 2022]. Need for mechanical ventilation was 21% in ANC vs. 27% in control group. Meta-analysis showed no difference between the two groups [RR = 0.78 (0.51–1.19), p = 0.25; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.09, I2 = 0%; LOE: Moderate]. (S6 Fig)

  7. Need for Surfactant: The data for this outcome was available from 3 studies that included 3340 neonates (ANC: 1690, Control: 1650) [10, 20, 22]. Need for surfactant was 1.5% in ANC vs. 3.2% in control group. Meta-analysis showed no difference between the two groups [RR = 0.45(0.11–1.84), p = 0.27; Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.95, I2 = 49%; LOE: Very Low]. (S7 Fig)

  8. Developmental follow up: None of the included studies reported data on this outcome.

  9. Adverse effects: Apart from neonatal hypoglycaemia none of the included studies reported any other adverse effects such as neonatal sepsis, and seizures.

Sensitivity analysis

Results of the sensitivity analysis including only studies with low ROB (Gyamifi- Bannerman and Porto et al) showed no difference in any respiratory support between ANC vs. control group, hypoglycaemia was more, whereas need for resuscitation at birth and surfactant therapy were significantly less in ANC group [10, 20] (S1 Table).

Subgroup analysis

This was not possible due to lack of stratified data based on gestational age, mode of delivery and maternal diabetes.

Analysis using fixed effect model

The results of this comparative analysis showed that majority of the outcomes including both primary outcomes were similar with both models. However, the fixed effect model showed admission to NICU, need for surfactant, RDS and TTN were significantly less in ANC group. (S2 Table)

Summary of findings table and publication bias

For the primary outcome of need for any respiratory support, the evidence was graded as moderate whereas it was deemed high for hypoglycaemia. For secondary outcomes the evidence was deemed as very low to moderate. (Table 2) Publication bias couldn’t be ruled out due to a small number of trials [26].

Table 2. Summary of finding for pooled data as per GRADE guidelines.
Outcome Absolute risk Relative effect Number of participants Quality of evidence
RR (95% CI) GRADE1
Effect of ANC on Estimated risk with placebo Corresponding risk with ANC
Any respiratory support 160 per 1,000 109 per 1,000 (75 to 157) RR 0.68 (0.47 to 0.98) 3844 (5 RCTs) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate**
Hypoglycemia 125per 1000 201 per 1000 (173 to234) RR 1.61 (1.38 to 1.87) 3604 (4 RCTs) ⨁⨁⨁⨁ High
Need for resus at birth [only in delivery room immediately after birth (not in NICU)] 165 per 1,000 104 per 1,000 (69 to 157) RR 0.63 (0.42 to 0.95) 3871 (6 RCTs) ⨁⨁◯◯ Low#
Admission to NICU 381 per 1,000 320 per 1,000 (225 to 453) OR 0.84 (0.59 to 1.19) 3944 (6 RCTs) ⨁⨁◯◯ Low*
TTN 114 per 1,000 102 per 1,000 (75 to 141) RR 0.90 (0.66 to 1.24) 3844 (5 RCTs) ⨁⨁◯◯ Low@@
RDS 68 per 1,000 43 per 1,000 (24 to 79) RR 0.64 (0.35 to 1.17) 4143 (7 RCTs) ⨁◯◯◯ Very Low@
Mortality 1 per 1,000 1 per 1,000 (0 to 30) RR 0.94 (0.04 to 23.80) 3200 (3 RCTs) ⨁◯◯◯ Very Low$
Need for mechanical ventilation 27 per 1,000 21 per 1,000 (14 to 32) RR 0.78 (0.51 to 1.19) 3650 (4 RCTs) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate$$
Need for Surfactant 32 per 1000 15 per 1,000 (4 to 58) RR 0.45 (0.11 to 1.84) 3340 (3RCT) ⨁◯◯◯ Very Low$

Abbreviations: ANC: Antenatal corticosteroids, CI: Confidence interval, GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, NICU: Neonatal intensive care unit, RDS: respiratory distress syndrome, RR: Relative risk, RCT: Randomised control trial, TTN: Transient tachypnoea of newborn

Quality of evidence GRADE

  1. High: Risk of bias: not serious, Inconsistency: Not Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: Not serious, Other considerations: None

  2. Moderate**: Risk of bias: not serious, Inconsistency: Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: Not serious, Other considerations: None

  3. Moderate$$: Risk of bias: not serious, Inconsistency: Not Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: serious, Other considerations: None

  4. Low#: Risk of bias: Serious, Inconsistency: Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: Not serious, Other considerations: None

  5. Low*: Risk of bias: Not Serious, Inconsistency: Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: serious, Other considerations: None

  6. Low@@: Risk of bias: Serious, Inconsistency: Not Serious, Indirectness: Not serious, Imprecision: serious, Other considerations: None

  7. Very Low@: Risk of bias: serious, Inconsistency: Serious, Indirectness: Non serious, Imprecision: Serious, Publication bias: Not serious

  8. Very Low$: Risk of bias: not serious, Inconsistency: Serious, Indirectness: Non serious, Imprecision: Very serious, Other considerations: None

Discussion

Our systematic review showed that exposure to ANC was beneficial in reducing the need for respiratory support but with the increased risk of hypoglycemia in neonates born at late preterm gestation. Exposure to ANC also reduced the need for resuscitation at birth. ANC had no impact on RDS, TTN, admission to NICU, need for mechanical ventilation, surfactant therapy and mortality. None of the included trials reported long term follow up data.

Respiratory morbidities in LPNs relate to developmental immaturity of the lungs. The mechanisms for benefits of ANC include enhanced alveolar differentiation with the induction of type 2 pneumocytes and activation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase [27, 28]. It is postulated that similar to term gestation, ANC exposure at late preterm gestation accelerates coordinated organ development sequence in response to endogenous rise in fetal glucocorticoids [29, 30]. Experimental studies show that the improvement in lung function after ANC exposure are due to an increase in the absorption of fetal lung fluid, thinning of alveolar septae, and synthesis of surfactant proteins and phospholipids [30, 31].

The benefits of ANC need to be considered in the context of their potential adverse effects. ANC exposure is associated with reduced brain mass, delayed myelination, decreased maturation of peripheral nerves, increased impairment of hypothalamopitutory axis and impaired programmed apoptosis in animal studies [30, 3234]. A follow-up study of participants from ASTECS trial reported two-fold increase in teacher-reported low academic ability in children (age 8–15 years) exposed to betamethasone as term infants born by an elective caesarean section. There were no significant differences in general health, behaviour and academic achievements between exposed vs. unexposed groups. However, only 51% response rate diminishes the validity of these finding [35].

A recent population-based study from Finland using nationwide registries of all (term and preterm) singleton live births found that ANC exposure was associated with a significant increase [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.33; 95% CI (1.26–1.41] in mental and behavioural disorders in children at 5.8 (interquartile-range, 3.1–8.7) years. The incidence of these disorders was high in term neonates exposed to ANC vs. controls [aHR: 1.38; (95% CI: 1.21–1.58)]. The incidence of these adverse outcomes was higher (14.59% vs 10.71%) but statistically non-significant [aHR: 1.00; (95% CI: 0.92–1.09)] in preterm neonates [36].

It is important to consider the implications of our results for clinical practice. The NNT to prevent one case of any respiratory support and need for resuscitation at birth was 20 and 16 respectively. In comparison, the NNT for harm was 13 for neonatal hypoglycaemia. LPNs are at high risk of hypoglycaemia due to poor substrate and underdeveloped compensatory response. The increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia might be due to transient hyperinsulinemia following maternal hyperglycaemia in response to ANC [37].

The definition of neonatal hypoglycaemia varied in the RCTs included in our review. The ALPS study defined it as blood glucose <2.2mmol/L [10]. This raises the possibility that many neonates with hypoglycemia may have been missed considering the widely accepted definition of hypoglycaemia is blood glucose <2.6 mmol/L. Hypoglycaemia is an independent predictor of poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates. A large prospective cohort study from Sweden (n = 101,060) found that, in infants with early moderate hypoglycemia (<6 hours after birth, blood glucose<2.2mmol/L), the risk of any adverse neurological or neurodevelopmental outcome and cognitive developmental delay was increased by two [OR 1.94 (1.30–2.89)] and three [OR 3.17 (1.35–7.43)] fold respectively compared to normoglycaemic infants [38].

A recent systematic review of non-RCTs (N = 1395) showed that neonatal hypoglycaemia was associated with visual-motor impairment (n = 508; OR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.13–10.57) and executive dysfunction (n = 463; OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.20–5.22) in early childhood. In mid-childhood, the odds of neurodevelopmental impairment (n = 54; OR = 3.62, 95% CI = 1.05–12.42), low literacy (n = 1,395; OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.20–3.47) and numeracy (n = 1,395; OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.21–3.44) were significantly higher [39].

Inability to predict spontaneous preterm birth means inevitable unwarranted exposure to ANC in a significant number of late preterm pregnancies, which do not result in late preterm delivery. The ALP study reported that 16% of pregnancies with ANC exposure went on to deliver at term gestation [28]. Overall, potential long-term neurodevelopmental adverse effects of ANC must receive due attention considering that none of the included trials till date have reported such data.

The limitations of using Apgar scores as a primary outcome need to be discussed. Apgar score at 1 minute does not correlate with mortality and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes [40]. Apgar scores can be low in otherwise well preterm neonates with no evidence of perinatal asphyxia [4042]. Moreover, being a continuous measure, it is much more likely that differences would be noted regardless of their clinical importance.

The strengths of our review include its robust methodology, inclusions of only RCTs, large sample size and use of GRADE guidelines for summarizing the level of evidence. We conducted sensitivity analysis excluding the studies with high ROB. Compared to the previous systematic review we have provided data from 4 more RCTs (n~1000), all from developing countries. The provision of the NNT for both, benefit and harm, is important for guiding research and clinical practice. The limitations of our review include the fact that the pooled results are still influenced by the large ALPS trial [10]. The included RCTs differ in the definitions of various outcomes, type of steroids, and their dosage. Furthermore, analysis stratified by gestation, mode of delivery or maternal diabetic status was not possible.

Conclusions

Our systematic review showed that exposure to ANC was beneficial in reducing the need for respiratory support but with an increased risk of hypoglycemia in neonates born at late preterm gestation. Exposure to ANC also reduced the need for resuscitation at birth.

In summary, moderate to low-quality evidence indicates that ANC exposure reduced the need for respiratory support and increased the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in LPNs. ANC reduced need for resuscitation at birth in LPNs. The increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is a serious concern. Pragmatic and adequately powered multicentre RCTs with long-term follow up assessing neonatal neurodevelopmental outcomes are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of ANC. Stratification by gestation, mode of delivery, maternal diabetes and other risk factors for respiratory distress is desirable in such trials. Pending results of such trials rigorous monitoring, treatment, and follow up of LPNs exposed to ANC is critical, more so in the context of hypoglycemia.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effect of ANC on need for resuscitation at birth.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Effect of ANC on admission to nursery.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Effect of ANC on TTN.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Effect of ANC on RDS.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Effect of ANC on mortality.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Effect of ANC on mechanical ventilation.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Effect of ANC on need for surfactant.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Results of sensitivity analysis based on ROB.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Results of analysis by fixed and random effects model.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Compliance of PRISMA guidelines.

(DOC)

S1 File. Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms Rhonda Mayberry (RM), Librarian, Fiona Stanley hospital, Perth, WA, for conducting an updated literature search.

Submission declaration: All authors declare that the work submitted has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Roberts D, Brown J, Medley N, Dalziel SR. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD004454. 10.1002/14651858.CD004454.pub3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Practice CoO. Committee Opinion No. 713: antenatal corticosteroid therapy for fetal maturation. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2017;130(2):e102. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Skoll A, Boutin A, Bujold E, Burrows J, Crane J, Geary M, et al. No. 364-Antenatal corticosteroid therapy for improving neonatal outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2018;40(9):1219–39. 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.04.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Delnord M, Zeitlin J. Epidemiology of late preterm and early term births—An international perspective. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(1):3–10. Epub 2018/10/13. 10.1016/j.siny.2018.09.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Raju T. The "Late Preterm" Birth-Ten Years Later. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). Epub 2017/02/06. 10.1542/peds.2016-3331 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Boyle EM, Johnson S, Manktelow B, Seaton SE, Draper ES, Smith LK, et al. Neonatal outcomes and delivery of care for infants born late preterm or moderately preterm: a prospective population-based study. Archives of disease in childhood Fetal and neonatal edition. 2015;100(6):F479–F85. Epub 2015/04/01. 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307347 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Tomashek KM, Kotelchuck M, Barfield W, Nannini A, Weiss J, et al. Effect of late-preterm birth and maternal medical conditions on newborn morbidity risk. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):e223–32. Epub 2008/02/05. 10.1542/peds.2006-3629 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Barfield W LK. Late Preterm Infants. Weisman L KM, editor: Up to date; 2020 23/06/2020.
  • 9.McLaurin KK, Hall CB, Jackson EA, Owens OV, Mahadevia PJ. Persistence of morbidity and cost differences between late-preterm and term infants during the first year of life. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):653–9. Epub 2009/01/28. 10.1542/peds.2008-1439 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Thom EA, Blackwell SC, Tita AT, Reddy UM, Saade GR, et al. Antenatal Betamethasone for Women at Risk for Late Preterm Delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(14):1311–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1516783 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saccone G, Berghella V. Antenatal corticosteroids for maturity of term or near term fetuses: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ-British Medical Journal. 2016;355:10. 10.1136/bmj.i5044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jobe AH, Goldenberg RL. Antenatal corticosteroids: an assessment of anticipated benefits and potential risks. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):62–74. Epub 2018/04/10. 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kamath-Rayne BD, Rozance PJ, Goldenberg RL, Jobe AH. Antenatal corticosteroids beyond 34 weeks gestation: What do we do now? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):423–30. Epub 2016/06/28. 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lefebvre C ME GJ. Searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions New York: Wiley. 2011; Version 5.1.0.
  • 15.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):W-65-W-94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928. Epub 2011/10/20. 10.1136/bmj.d5928 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d4002. Epub 2011/07/26. 10.1136/bmj.d4002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables—binary outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(2):158–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schünemann H BJ, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook. October 2013.
  • 20.Porto AM, Coutinho IC, Correia JB, Amorim MM. Effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids in reducing respiratory disorders in late preterm infants: randomised clinical trial. Bmj. 2011;342:d1696. 10.1136/bmj.d1696 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ontela V, Dorairajan G, Bhat VB, Chinnakali P. Effect of Antenatal Steroids on Respiratory Morbidity of Late Preterm Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Trop Pediatr. 2018;64(6):531–8. 10.1093/tropej/fmy001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mirzamoradi M, Hasani Nejhad F, Jamali R, Heidar Z, Bakhtiyari M. Evaluation of the effect of antenatal betamethasone on neonatal respiratory morbidities in late preterm deliveries (34–37 weeks). Journal of Maternal Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2018. 10.1080/14767058.2018.1554051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kassab F. The effect of antenatal steroids on fetal outcome after the 34 weeks of pregnancy in women at high risk of preterm labor. AAMJ. 2013;10(4):262–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Balci O, Ozdemir S, Mahmoud AS, Acar A, Colakoglu MC. The effect of antenatal steroids on fetal lung maturation between the 34th and 36th week of pregnancy. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation. 2010;70(2):95–9. 10.1159/000295898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Attawattanakul N, Tansupswatdikul P. Effects of antenatal dexamethasone on respiratory distress in late preterm infant: a randomized controlled trial. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;23(1):25–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d4002. Epub 2011/07/26. 10.1136/bmj.d4002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ballard PL, Ballard RA. Scientific basis and therapeutic regimens for use of antenatal glucocorticoids. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):254–62. Epub 1995/07/01. 10.1016/0002-9378(95)90210-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Haviv HR, Said J, Mol BW. The place of antenatal corticosteroids in late preterm and early term births. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(1):37–42. Epub 2018/10/17. 10.1016/j.siny.2018.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liggins GC. The role of cortisol in preparing the fetus for birth. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1994;6(2):141–50. Epub 1994/01/01. 10.1071/rd9940141 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McKinlay CJ, Dalziel SR, Harding JE. Antenatal glucocorticoids: where are we after forty years? J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015;6(2):127–42. Epub 2014/12/04. 10.1017/S2040174414000579 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Polglase GR, Nitsos I, Jobe AH, Newnham JP, Moss TJ. Maternal and intra-amniotic corticosteroid effects on lung morphometry in preterm lambs. Pediatr Res. 2007;62(1):32–6. Epub 2007/05/23. 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3180686433 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Huang WL, Beazley LD, Quinlivan JA, Evans SF, Newnham JP, Dunlop SA. Effect of corticosteroids on brain growth in fetal sheep. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(2):213–8. Epub 1999/08/04. 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00265-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Antonow-Schlorke I, Helgert A, Gey C, Coksaygan T, Schubert H, Nathanielsz PW, et al. Adverse effects of antenatal glucocorticoids on cerebral myelination in sheep. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):142–51. Epub 2008/12/24. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181924d3b . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kapoor A, Petropoulos S, Matthews SG. Fetal programming of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function and behavior by synthetic glucocorticoids. Brain Res Rev. 2008;57(2):586–95. Epub 2007/08/25. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.06.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stutchfield PR, Whitaker R, Gliddon AE, Hobson L, Kotecha S, Doull IJ. Behavioural, educational and respiratory outcomes of antenatal betamethasone for term caesarean section (ASTECS trial). Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(3):F195–200. Epub 2013/02/21. 10.1136/archdischild-2012-303157 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Räikkönen K, Gissler M, Kajantie E. Associations Between Maternal Antenatal Corticosteroid Treatment and Mental and Behavioral Disorders in Children. Jama. 2020;323(19):1924–33. Epub 2020/05/20. 10.1001/jama.2020.3937 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kamatkar S, Jobe A. Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids (ALPS): are we ready to accept it? J Perinatol. 2017;37(6):624–5. Epub 2017/03/24. 10.1038/jp.2017.25 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wickström R, Skiöld B, Petersson G, Stephansson O, Altman M. Moderate neonatal hypoglycemia and adverse neurological development at 2–6 years of age. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(10):1011–20. Epub 2018/07/22. 10.1007/s10654-018-0425-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shah R, Harding J, Brown J, McKinlay C. Neonatal Glycaemia and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neonatology. 2019;115(2):116–26. Epub 2018/11/09. 10.1159/000492859 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.The Apgar Score. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):819–22. Epub 2015/09/30. 10.1542/peds.2015-2651 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Catlin EA, Carpenter MW, Brann BSt, Mayfield SR, Shaul PW, Goldstein M, et al. The Apgar score revisited: influence of gestational age. J Pediatr. 1986;109(5):865–8. Epub 1986/11/01. 10.1016/s0022-3476(86)80715-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hegyi T, Carbone T, Anwar M, Ostfeld B, Hiatt M, Koons A, et al. The apgar score and its components in the preterm infant. Pediatrics. 1998;101(1 Pt 1):77–81. Epub 1998/01/17. 10.1542/peds.101.1.77 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Georg M Schmölzer

14 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-35297

Antenatal Corticosteroids for Impending Late Preterm (34-36+6 Weeks) Deliveries – A systematic review of RCTs

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mangesh Deshmukh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by February 28, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure you have included details of data extraction methods in the manuscript methods. We would expect to see reporting of the specific information extracted from the manuscripts.

3. We note that your systematic review includes a meta-analysis. Please update the title to reflect this, e.g. update to "systematic review and meta-analysis".

4.Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0176090

https://academic.oup.com/tropej/article/64/6/531/4819249

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767058.2018.1554051?af=R&journalCode=ijmf20

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1516783?page=9&sort=newest

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1696?ijkey=88b473f74af7363bb70afc21e981af2f41853d6c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which tackles the important topic of ACS use in late preterm infants.

An appropriately rigorous methodology was generally used, following guidelines.

The manuscript is generally well written and clear with a logical flow and a balanced approach.

A) The major comment I have is that it does not appear that the protocol was registered with Prospero or another database.

This should be stated outright in the method section. This is unfortunate as it is that’s impossible to determine what were a priori defined results versus post hoc. However, these should still be labelled a priori versus post hoc by the authors.

Aii)

Apgar score does not appear to be listed in the outcomes in the Methods. Thus it should be labelled post hoc, and any others that were not planned

B) The second major issue is: The authors have listed under the outcome “need for resuscitation at birth“ “positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen“.

Bi) These appear to be respiratory support not resus.

Bii) Indeed some of the features overlap with the authors’ primary outcome “need for any respiratory support (mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen“.

Thus the results in these 2 outcomes (need for resuscitation at birth“ “positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen“ and “need for any respiratory support (mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen“), overlap ?completely or very significantly, essentially meaning the same outcomes were double counted and is inappropriate. A different secondary outcome without overlap should be created.

C) In table 1, the authors list “results” however this is only a partial list of the results in the trials. Please change the heading to be much more descriptive – which results did you choose to list in table one?

D) In table 1, some of the results that are presented our odds ratios which seems very odd if this was actually an RCT.

Please verify

E) Please incorporate the GRADE into your results int the body of the manuscript e.g. In lines 195 to 241, Just as you did in the abstract

F) given that the authors to a priority defined outcomes including both respiration and hypoglycemia, the summary statements of the results in the abstract as well as in the body of the manuscript should reflect this with both outcomes in the first sentence, and not hypoglycaemia relegated to the second sentence. This better reflects there a priority defined primary outcomes, but also avoids misinterpretation of results should people read only the first sentence– Which can occur

G) outcomes which had no data should still be included in Tables, has this emphasizes the need for data for those August and also remind Reader’s of your initial intention to try to inform the subject in this area hence for example developmental outcomes even if there is no data should be added to all of the tables

H) The use of a primary outcome in many of the included RCTs of Apgar score at one in five minutes is problematic, and this should mention this in the Discussion.

• Apgar score at 1 minute reflects resuscitation/stabilization and does not correlate with long term outcomes.

• Apgar score in preterm infants has not been validated to my knowledge

• Because it is a continuous measure it is much more likely that differences would be noted, Regardless of clinical importance

Minor revisions:

1) Please define “facial oxygen“. Since all oxygen is applied somehow to the face, I’m not sure that this description is clear – does this include both high and low flow nasal prongs?

2) In supplemental table one please bold only the statistically significant results

Please include the actual search strategies used in each database in your supplement

3) in line 27 suggest replacing the word neonate with infants to avoid confusion that (Neonatal typically defined within the first 28 days of life and the authors appropriately had a broader scope for their SR)

4 line 45 suggest revision of the statement that large trials are needed – as many would argue that ALPS was a large trial, I believe what the authors mean is that large trials with adequate follow up for Neurodevelopmental outcomes are needed

5) even in the abstract I think it would be worth stressing that of the included Trials, only a single one was in HIC the others were not

Well written manuscript that adds importantly to the literature. Congratulations

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sarah D McDonald

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 22;16(3):e0248774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248774.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Feb 2021

Dear Editor

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. Please find the point-by-point response as follows. Hope to hear from you soon.

Dr Mangesh Deshmukh

Dr Sanjay Patole

Editorial Comments:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

Response: Done

2. Please ensure you have included details of data extraction methods in the manuscript methods. We would expect to see reporting of the specific information extracted from the manuscripts.

Response: We have updated the manuscript in data extraction section incorporating the suggestions.

3. We note that your systematic review includes a meta-analysis. Please update the title to reflect this, e.g. update to "systematic review and meta-analysis".

Response: Done

4.Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author:

Response: Apologies for the overlap in Table-1 (Characteristics of included randomised control trials) particularly in the 'Primary Outcome' row. We have now updated the table by rephrasing the terms as much as possible. We also updated one more sentence in Discussion section as follows (Page 17; Lines 313-15)

Experimental studies show that the improvement in lung function after ANC exposure are due to an increase in the absorption of fetal lung fluid, thinning of alveolar septae, and synthesis of surfactant proteins and phospholipids.[30, 31]

Reviewer’s comments

Ai) The major comment I have is that it does not appear that the protocol was registered with Prospero or another database. This should be stated outright in the method section. This is unfortunate as it is that’s impossible to determine what were a priori defined results versus post hoc. However, these should still be labelled a priori versus post hoc by the authors.

Response: We have not registered the protocol with PROSPERO or any other database.

As advised, we have mentioned this in the Material and methods section Page 6, line102-03

Aii) Apgar score does not appear to be listed in the outcomes in the Methods. Thus, it should be labelled post hoc, and any others that were not planned

Response: Apgar score is not an outcome we studied and hence not reported in our results.

Apgar scores were the outcome reported by the investigators of included trials. Hence, we have included them in Table 1(Characteristics of included randomised control trials), which gives characteristics and key findings of included trials.

B) The second major issue is: The authors have listed under the outcome “need for resuscitation at birth”, “positive pressure ventilation”, “CPAP”, “facial oxygen”.

Bi) These appear to be respiratory support not resus.

Bii) Indeed some of the features overlap with the authors’ primary outcome “need for any respiratory support (mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen“.

Thus the results in these 2 outcomes (need for resuscitation at birth“ “positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen“ and “need for any respiratory support (mechanical ventilation, CPAP, high flow) or oxygen“), overlap completely or very significantly, essentially meaning the same outcomes were double counted and is inappropriate. A different secondary outcome without overlap should be created.

Response: Apologies for the confusion. The outcome defined as “Need for resuscitation at birth” was meant to include, requirement of any intervention including positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen only in the delivery room immediately after birth.

Our primary outcome “Need for any respiratory support” (in NICU) is different from need for resuscitation in the delivery room as defined above. There is no overlap.

Total 5/6 of the included RCTs reported outcome of “need for resuscitation at birth”, we got the clarification from the remaining RCT where the outcome definition was not clear (Ontela et al) confirming no overlap of the data between the two outcomes.

We have modified the sentence as below to clarify this issue in “Materials and method” section. Page 6, Line-112-14.

Need for resuscitation at birth: Requirement of any intervention including positive pressure ventilation, CPAP, facial oxygen (defined as free flow of oxygen near the nostrils by a catheter or mask) only in the delivery room immediately after birth.

C) In table 1, the authors list “results” however this is only a partial list of the results in the trials. Please change the heading to be much more descriptive – which results did you choose to list in table one?

Response: We have included primary outcomes from original studies and their secondary outcomes relating to adverse effects of ANC (e.g. hypoglycaemia).

D) In table 1, some of the results that are presented our odds ratios which seems very odd if this was actually an RCT. Please verify

Response: The published data indeed reports OR instead of RR despite the study being a RCT. We assume that the journal accepted ORs considering they are close to RRs when the event rate is low. However, to avoid this confusion now we have given percentage of each outcome. Table 1(Characteristics of included randomised control trials)

E) Please incorporate the GRADE into your results in the body of the manuscript e.g. In lines 195 to 241, Just as you did in the abstract.

Response: We have incorporated the GRADE into results in the body of the manuscript as suggested. We have also made a small change in Grading the evidence and summary of findings section (Page 8, lines 173) instead of “quality” to “level of evidence (LOE)”

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for assessment and Grade pro guidelines development tool to create the summary of findings table for reporting the level of evidence (LOE). [18, 19]

F) Given that the authors to a priority defined outcome including both respiration and hypoglycemia, the summary statements of the results in the abstract as well as in the body of the manuscript should reflect this with both outcomes in the first sentence, and not hypoglycaemia relegated to the second sentence. This better reflects there a priority defined primary outcomes, but also avoids misinterpretation of results should people read only the first sentence– Which can occur

Response: We have modified the first few lines of “Discussion” (Page 17, Lines 303-305) and “Conclusions” (Page 20, Lines 378-81) as follows

• Our systematic review showed that exposure to ANC was beneficial in reducing the need for respiratory support but increased the risk of hypoglycaemia in neonates born at late preterm gestation. Exposure to ANC also reduced the need for resuscitation at birth.

• In summary, moderate to low quality evidence indicates that ANC exposure reduced the need for respiratory support and increased the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in LPNs. ANC reduced need for resuscitation at birth in LPNs. The increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is a serious concern.

G) Outcomes which had no data should still be included in Tables, has this emphasizes the need for data for those August and also remind readers of your initial intention to try to inform the subject in this area hence for example developmental outcomes even if there is no data should be added to all of the tables.

Response: Assessment of long-term neurodevelopmental follow up was not the aim of our systematic review. We focused only the short-term outcomes in the included studies. Furthermore, none of the included trails reported such data. We have added a footnote to Table 1(Characteristics of included randomised control trials) as follows:

“Neurodevelopment outcomes have not been reported by any of the included studies.”

H) The use of a primary outcome in many of the included RCTs of Apgar score at one in five minutes is problematic, and this should mention this in the Discussion.

Apgar score at 1 minute reflects resuscitation/stabilization and does not correlate with long term outcomes. Apgar score in preterm infants has not been validated to my knowledge. Because it is a continuous measure it is much more likely that differences would be noted, Regardless of clinical importance.

Response: Thank you for your comments, we have added following sentences in the Discussion section (Page 19, Lines 360-364)

The concerns about using Apgar scores as a primary outcome need to be discussed. Apgar score at 1 minute does not correlate with mortality and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. [40] Apgar scores can be low in otherwise well preterm neonates with no evidence of perinatal asphyxia. [40-42] Moreover, being a continuous measure, it is much more likely that differences would be noted regardless of their clinical importance.

Minor revisions:

1) Please define “facial oxygen”. Since all oxygen is applied somehow to the face, I’m not sure that this description is clear – does this include both high and low flow nasal prongs?

Response: Facial oxygen was defined as free flow of oxygen near the nostrils by a catheter or mask. This is a common practise especially in resource limited set up. We have provided this definition in material and methods section (Page 6, Lines 113-14).

2) In supplemental table one please bold only the statistically significant results

Response: Done

Please include the actual search strategies used in each database in your supplement

Response: We have now included search strategy for Medline via Ovid including Epub ahead of print, Embase, Web of science. We have also fixed the issue with formatting. Details are in S1 file supporting information– Search strategy

3) in line 27 suggest replacing the word neonate with infants to avoid confusion that (Neonatal typically defined within the first 28 days of life and the authors appropriately had a broader scope for their SR)

Response: Done.

4) line 45 suggest revision of the statement that large trials are needed – as many would argue that ALPS was a large trial, I believe what the authors mean is that large trials with adequate follow up for Neurodevelopmental outcomes are needed

Response: Done. (Page 2, 3, Lines 46-48)

5) even in the abstract I think it would be worth stressing that of the included Trials, only a single one was in HIC the others were not

Response: Done. (Page 2, Lines 37-38)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers response Final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Georg M Schmölzer

3 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-35297R1

Antenatal Corticosteroids for Impending Late Preterm (34-36+6 Weeks) Deliveries – A Systematic review and Meta-analysis of RCTs

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mangesh Deshmukh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 31 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript. I appreciate the authors responses.

A) The authors responded clearly in their response to the comments on page 2 however for clarity in the 1)abstract, 2)manuscript and in the 3)tables, please add to “need for resuscitation at birth” adding “only in the delivery room immediately after birth (Not in NICU).

B) Please also put back(I know it had been removed witt TC, but I did not request this removal and it is important) in your conclusion of the abstract that large definitive trials are required to assess benefits and risks of ANC in this population

C) Please note that in track changes line 384 states “the concerns about using Apgar scores as a primary outcome need to be discussed“ please remove the sentence as this was my direction to you

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Professor Sarah D McDonald

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 22;16(3):e0248774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248774.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Mar 2021

Dear Editor

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. Please find the point-by-point response as follows. Hope to hear from you soon.

Dr Mangesh Deshmukh

Dr Sanjay Patole

Reviewer #1:

A) The authors responded clearly in their response to the comments on page 2 however for clarity in the 1)abstract, 2)manuscript and in the 3)tables, please add to “need for resuscitation at birth” adding “only in the delivery room immediately after birth (Not in NICU).

Response: Done;

Abstract: Page 2, Line 35,36;

Manuscript: Material and methods: Page 6, line 115-16, Results: Page 12, lines 226-27,

Table 2

B) Please also put back(I know it had been removed witt TC, but I did not request this removal and it is important) in your conclusion of the abstract that large definitive trials are required to assess benefits and risks of ANC in this population

Response: Thanks for the comment. The above sentence is already there in the abstract (Page 2,3, Line 47-49)

Large definitive trials with adequate follow up for neurodevelopmental outcomes are required to assess benefits and risks of ANC in this population.

C) Please note that in track changes line 384 states “the concerns about using Apgar scores as a primary outcome need to be discussed“ please remove the sentence as this was my direction to you

Response: We used the sentence as a linking sentence to introduce discussion on APGAR score.

We have modified the sentence as follows, in Discussion section Page 19, line 364.

The limitations of using Apgar scores as a primary outcome need to be discussed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers response Final.docx

Decision Letter 2

Georg M Schmölzer

5 Mar 2021

Antenatal Corticosteroids for Impending Late Preterm (34-36+6 Weeks) Deliveries – A Systematic review and Meta-analysis of RCTs

PONE-D-20-35297R2

Dear Dr. Mangesh Deshmukh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Georg M Schmölzer

11 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-35297R2

Antenatal Corticosteroids for Impending Late Preterm (34-36+6 Weeks) Deliveries – A Systematic review and Meta-analysis of RCTs

Dear Dr. Deshmukh:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Effect of ANC on need for resuscitation at birth.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Effect of ANC on admission to nursery.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Effect of ANC on TTN.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Effect of ANC on RDS.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Effect of ANC on mortality.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Effect of ANC on mechanical ventilation.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Effect of ANC on need for surfactant.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Results of sensitivity analysis based on ROB.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Results of analysis by fixed and random effects model.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Compliance of PRISMA guidelines.

    (DOC)

    S1 File. Search strategy.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers response Final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers response Final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES