Piya Chaemsaithong1,2, Roberto Romero1,3,4, Steven J Korzeniewski1,2,4, Alicia Martinez-Varea1,2, Zhong Dong1,2, Bo Hyun Yoon5, Sonia S Hassan1,2, Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa1,2, Lami Yeo1,2. 1. a Division of Intramural Research , Perinatology Research Branch, Program for Perinatal Research and Obstetrics, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH , Detroit , MI , USA . 2. b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Wayne State University , Detroit , MI , USA . 3. c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , MI , USA . 4. d Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , Michigan State University , East Lansing , MI , USA , and. 5. e Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Seoul National University College of Medicine , Seoul , Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (preterm PROM) accounts for 30-40% of spontaneous preterm deliveries and thus is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. An amniotic fluid (AF) interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentration is a key cytokine for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation, patients at risk of impending preterm delivery and adverse pregnancy complications. The conventional method to determine IL-6 concentrations in AF is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). However, this technique is not available in clinical settings, and the results may take several days. A lateral flow-based immunoassay, or point of care (POC) test, has been developed to address this issue. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of AF IL-6 determined by the POC test to that determined by ELISA for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation in patients with preterm PROM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes 56 women with singleton pregnancies who presented with preterm PROM. Amniocentesis was performed at the time of diagnosis, and AF was analyzed using cultivation techniques for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria as well as genital mycoplasmas. AF Gram stain and AF white blood cell counts were determined. AF IL-6 concentrations were measured using both lateral flow-based immunoassay and ELISA. The primary outcome was intra-amniotic inflammation defined as AF ELISA IL-6 ≥ 2600 pg/ml. A previously determined cut-off of 745 pg/ml was used to define a positive POC test. RESULTS: (1) The POC test for AF IL-6 concentrations had 97% sensitivity and 96% specificity for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation, as defined using ELISA among patients with preterm PROM and (2) the diagnostic performance of the POC test for IL-6 was strongly correlated to that of an ELISA test for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation and was equivalent for the identification of acute inflammatory placental lesions and microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity (MIAC). CONCLUSION: A POC AF IL-6 test can identify intra-amniotic inflammation in patients with preterm PROM. Results can be available within 20 min - this makes it possible to implement interventions designed to treat intra-amniotic inflammation and improve pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (preterm PROM) accounts for 30-40% of spontaneous preterm deliveries and thus is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. An amniotic fluid (AF) interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentration is a key cytokine for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation, patients at risk of impending preterm delivery and adverse pregnancy complications. The conventional method to determine IL-6 concentrations in AF is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). However, this technique is not available in clinical settings, and the results may take several days. A lateral flow-based immunoassay, or point of care (POC) test, has been developed to address this issue. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of AFIL-6 determined by the POC test to that determined by ELISA for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation in patients with preterm PROM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes 56 women with singleton pregnancies who presented with preterm PROM. Amniocentesis was performed at the time of diagnosis, and AF was analyzed using cultivation techniques for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria as well as genital mycoplasmas. AF Gram stain and AF white blood cell counts were determined. AFIL-6 concentrations were measured using both lateral flow-based immunoassay and ELISA. The primary outcome was intra-amniotic inflammation defined as AF ELISA IL-6 ≥ 2600 pg/ml. A previously determined cut-off of 745 pg/ml was used to define a positive POC test. RESULTS: (1) The POC test for AFIL-6 concentrations had 97% sensitivity and 96% specificity for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation, as defined using ELISA among patients with preterm PROM and (2) the diagnostic performance of the POC test for IL-6 was strongly correlated to that of an ELISA test for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation and was equivalent for the identification of acute inflammatory placental lesions and microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity (MIAC). CONCLUSION: A POC AFIL-6 test can identify intra-amniotic inflammation in patients with preterm PROM. Results can be available within 20 min - this makes it possible to implement interventions designed to treat intra-amniotic inflammation and improve pregnancy outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute chorioamnionitis; ELISA; acute funisitis; amniocentesis; biomarkers; microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity; preterm labor; rapid interleukin-6
Authors: Marian Kacerovsky; Teresa Cobo; Ctirad Andrys; Ivana Musilova; Marcela Drahosova; Helena Hornychova; Petr Janku; Bo Jacobsson Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2013-02-01
Authors: Ivana Musilova; Ctirad Andrys; Marcela Drahosova; Barbora Zednikova; Helena Hornychova; Lenka Pliskova; Helena Zemlickova; Bo Jacobsson; Marian Kacerovsky Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: T Myntti; L Rahkonen; A Pätäri-Sampo; M Tikkanen; T Sorsa; J Juhila; O Helve; S Andersson; J Paavonen; V Stefanovic Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Roberto Romero; Nardhy Gomez-Lopez; Andrew D Winters; Eunjung Jung; Majid Shaman; Janine Bieda; Bogdan Panaitescu; Percy Pacora; Offer Erez; Jonathan M Greenberg; Madison M Ahmad; Chaur-Dong Hsu; Kevin R Theis Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 1.901
Authors: Roberto Romero; Piya Chaemsaithong; Steven J Korzeniewski; Juan P Kusanovic; Nikolina Docheva; Alicia Martinez-Varea; Ahmed I Ahmed; Bo Hyun Yoon; Sonia S Hassan; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Lami Yeo Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.901