L C Poon1,2, D L Rolnik3, M Y Tan3,4, J L Delgado5, T Tsokaki3,6, R Akolekar3,7, M Singh3,8, W Andrade3, T Efeturk3,9, J C Jani10, W Plasencia11, G Papaioannou12, A R Blazquez13, I F Carbone14, D Wright15, K H Nicolaides3. 1. King's College London, London, UK. 2. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. 3. King's College Hospital, London, UK. 4. Lewisham University Hospital, London, UK. 5. Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain. 6. North Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK. 7. Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK. 8. Southend University Hospital, Essex, UK. 9. Homerton University Hospital, London, UK. 10. University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 11. Hospiten Group, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. 12. Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece. 13. Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Granada, Spain. 14. Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 15. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence of preterm pre-eclampsia (PE) in women who are screen positive according to the criteria of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and compare the incidence with that in those who are screen positive or screen negative by The Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from the ASPRE study. The study population consisted of women with singleton pregnancy who underwent prospective screening for preterm PE by means of the FMF algorithm, which combines maternal factors and biomarkers at 11-13 weeks' gestation. The incidence of preterm PE in women fulfilling the NICE and ACOG criteria was estimated; in these patients the incidence of preterm PE was then calculated in those who were screen negative relative to those who were screen positive by the FMF algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 34 573 women with singleton pregnancy delivering at ≥ 24 weeks' gestation underwent prospective screening for preterm PE, of which 239 (0.7%) cases developed preterm PE. At least one of the ACOG criteria was fulfilled in 22 287 (64.5%) pregnancies and the incidence of preterm PE was 0.97% (95% CI, 0.85-1.11%); in the subgroup that was screen positive by the FMF algorithm the incidence of preterm PE was 4.80% (95% CI, 4.14-5.55%), and in those that were screen negative it was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.18-0.33%), with a relative incidence in FMF screen negative to FMF screen positive of 0.051 (95% CI, 0.037-0.071). In 1392 (4.0%) pregnancies, at least one of the NICE high-risk criteria was fulfilled, and in this group the incidence of preterm PE was 5.17% (95% CI, 4.13-6.46%); in the subgroups of screen positive and screen negative by the FMF algorithm, the incidence of preterm PE was 8.71% (95% CI, 6.93-10.89%) and 0.65% (95% CI, 0.25-1.67%), respectively, and the relative incidence was 0.075 (95% CI, 0.028-0.205). In 2360 (6.8%) pregnancies fulfilling at least two of the NICE moderate-risk criteria, the incidence of preterm PE was 1.74% (95% CI, 1.28-2.35%); in the subgroups of screen positive and screen negative by the FMF algorithm the incidence was 4.91% (95% CI, 3.54-6.79%) and 0.42% (95% CI, 0.20-0.86%), respectively, and the relative incidence was 0.085 (95% CI, 0.038-0.192). CONCLUSION: In women who are screen positive for preterm PE by the ACOG or NICE criteria but screen negative by the FMF algorithm, the risk of preterm PE is reduced to within or below background levels. The results provide further evidence to support the personalized risk-based screening method that combines maternal factors and biomarkers.
OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence of preterm pre-eclampsia (PE) in women who are screen positive according to the criteria of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and compare the incidence with that in those who are screen positive or screen negative by The Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from the ASPRE study. The study population consisted of women with singleton pregnancy who underwent prospective screening for preterm PE by means of the FMF algorithm, which combines maternal factors and biomarkers at 11-13 weeks' gestation. The incidence of preterm PE in women fulfilling the NICE and ACOG criteria was estimated; in these patients the incidence of preterm PE was then calculated in those who were screen negative relative to those who were screen positive by the FMF algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 34 573 women with singleton pregnancy delivering at ≥ 24 weeks' gestation underwent prospective screening for preterm PE, of which 239 (0.7%) cases developed preterm PE. At least one of the ACOG criteria was fulfilled in 22 287 (64.5%) pregnancies and the incidence of preterm PE was 0.97% (95% CI, 0.85-1.11%); in the subgroup that was screen positive by the FMF algorithm the incidence of preterm PE was 4.80% (95% CI, 4.14-5.55%), and in those that were screen negative it was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.18-0.33%), with a relative incidence in FMF screen negative to FMF screen positive of 0.051 (95% CI, 0.037-0.071). In 1392 (4.0%) pregnancies, at least one of the NICE high-risk criteria was fulfilled, and in this group the incidence of preterm PE was 5.17% (95% CI, 4.13-6.46%); in the subgroups of screen positive and screen negative by the FMF algorithm, the incidence of preterm PE was 8.71% (95% CI, 6.93-10.89%) and 0.65% (95% CI, 0.25-1.67%), respectively, and the relative incidence was 0.075 (95% CI, 0.028-0.205). In 2360 (6.8%) pregnancies fulfilling at least two of the NICE moderate-risk criteria, the incidence of preterm PE was 1.74% (95% CI, 1.28-2.35%); in the subgroups of screen positive and screen negative by the FMF algorithm the incidence was 4.91% (95% CI, 3.54-6.79%) and 0.42% (95% CI, 0.20-0.86%), respectively, and the relative incidence was 0.085 (95% CI, 0.038-0.192). CONCLUSION: In women who are screen positive for preterm PE by the ACOG or NICE criteria but screen negative by the FMF algorithm, the risk of preterm PE is reduced to within or below background levels. The results provide further evidence to support the personalized risk-based screening method that combines maternal factors and biomarkers.
Authors: Liona C Poon; Andrew Shennan; Jonathan A Hyett; Anil Kapur; Eran Hadar; Hema Divakar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Fabricio da Silva Costa; Peter von Dadelszen; Harold David McIntyre; Anne B Kihara; Gian Carlo Di Renzo; Roberto Romero; Mary D'Alton; Vincenzo Berghella; Kypros H Nicolaides; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Dagmar Wertaschnigg; Maya Reddy; Ben W J Mol; Daniel L Rolnik; Fabricio da Silva Costa Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: S R Nagalla; V Janaki; A R Vijayalakshmi; K Chayadevi; D Pratibha; P V Rao; K M Sage; D Nair-Schaef; E Bean; C T Roberts; M G Gravett Journal: BJOG Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Fabienne Trottmann; Anne Elena Mollet; Sofia Amylidi-Mohr; Daniel Surbek; Luigi Raio; Beatrice Mosimann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Rijo M Choorakuttil; Hemant Patel; Rajalingam Bavaharan; Palanisamy Devarajan; Saneej Kanhirat; Ramesh S Shenoy; Om P Tiwari; Rajendra K Sodani; Lalit K Sharma; Praveen K Nirmalan Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging Date: 2019-12-31
Authors: Ziad T A Al-Rubaie; H Malcolm Hudson; Gregory Jenkins; Imad Mahmoud; Joel G Ray; Lisa M Askie; Sarah J Lord Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Dalau Mukadi Nkamba; Roland Vangu; Moyene Elongi; Laura A Magee; Gilbert Wembodinga; Pierre Bernard; John Ditekemena; Annie Robert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.655