The feasibility of soluble Fms-Like Tyrosine kinase-1 (sFLT-1) and Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) ratio biomarker in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia significantly contributes to maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. It is imperative to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia in the effort to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes through early intervention. Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF) level changes are noticeable several weeks before the onset of preeclampsia and its related complications. This study evaluated the feasibility of the sFlt-1/PlGF biomarker ratio in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes using a single cut-off point of >38.
METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary centre, in an urban setting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between December 2019 and April 2021. A total of 140 medium to high risk mothers with singleton pregnancies were recruited at ≥20 weeks' gestation. sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured and the participant monitored according to a research algorithm until delivery. The primary outcome measure was incidence of preeclampsia and the secondary outcome measure was incidence of other adverse pregnancy outcomes.
RESULTS: The overall incidence of preeclampsia was 20.7% (29/140). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was significantly higher in preeclampsia (73.58 ± 93.49) compared to no preeclampsia (13.41 ± 21.63) (p = 0.002). The risk of preeclampsia (adjusted OR 28.996; 95% CI 7.920-106.164; p<0.001) and low Apgar score (adjusted OR 17.387; 95% CI 3.069-98.517; p = 0.028) were significantly higher among women with sFlt-1/PlGF ratio >38 compared with sFLT-1/PlGF ratio ≤38. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) for a combined approach (maternal clinical characteristics and biomarker) was 86.9% (p<0.001, 95% CI 78.7-95.0) compared with AUC biomarker alone, which was 74.8% (p<0.001, 95% CI 63.3-86.3) in predicting preeclampsia. The test sensitivity(SEN) was 58.6%, specificity (SPEC) 91%,positive predictive value (PPV) 63% and negative predictive value (NPV) 89.3% for prediction of preeclampsia. For predicting a low Apgar score at 5 minutes, the SEN was 84.6%, SPEC 87.4%, PPV 40.7%, and NPV 98.2%; low birth weight with SEN 52.6%,SPEC 86.0%, PPV 37.0%, NPV 92.0%; premature delivery with SEN 48.5%, SPEC 89.5%, PPV 59.3%, NPV 84.7% and NICU admission with SEN 50.0%, SPEC 85.8%, PPV 37.0% and NPV 91.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use single cut-off point of >38 ratio of the biomarkers sFlt-1/PlGF in combination with other parameters (maternal clinical characteristics) in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers without restricting outcome measurement period to 1 and 4 weeks in a single urban tertiary centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Introduction

Preeclampsia complicates 2–10% of pregnancies worldwide and significantly contributes to maternal, fetal, and newborn morbidity and mortality [1-5]. Preeclampsia is characterized by the combined presentation of hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction, such as renal insufficiency, liver involvement, neurological or haematological complications, and uteroplacental dysfunction as evidenced by fetal growth restriction (FGR) [2, 6].

Early detection and prevention of preeclampsia will reduce both prevalence of the disease and health service costs [7]. Early identification of women at risk of developing preeclampsia for commencement of aspirin and calcium as prophylaxis, close monitoring, and timely delivery, are critical steps in the management, in order to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes [8, 9]. A huge challenge in managing preeclampsia is in predicting its development and severity [10].

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia remains unclear but placental dysfunction is believed to be the primary insult [11, 12]. Incomplete maternal spiral artery remodeling in early pregnancy leads to placental hypoperfusion. Oxidative stress within the placenta leads to changes in biomarker levels, with increased serum soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) and reduced placental growth factor (PlGF) [13].

PlGF is a proangiogenic factor [14] that has been found to be a biomarker of preeclampsia [15, 16] It is produced by the placenta, mainly the syncytiotrophoblast, and the endothelium [16, 17]. PlGF plays a major role in the growth of placental blood vessels [18, 19]. It can be detected in maternal blood from 8 weeks’ gestation up to the second trimester of pregnancy, after which PlGF decreases progressively until delivery [20]. In preeclampsia, PlGF remains persistently low [16, 21, 22]. Infusion of recombinant human PlGF using intraperitoneal osmotic mini-pumps can eliminate the progression of hypertension in a rat model of preeclampsia [23].

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is important for vascular homeostasis which stimulates both VEGF receptor-1 (VEGFR-1) and -2 (VEGFR-2), VEGF and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), are essential for angiogenesis [24-28]. sFlt-1 antagonises VEGF and PlGF, preventing interaction of VEGF and PlGF, by preventing interaction with the endothelial receptors and causing endothelial dysfunction [29-31].

Changes in the levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF are noticeable several weeks before the onset of preeclampsia and its related complications [11]. sFlt-1/PlGF ratios of 38 or lower carry a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3% (95% CI 97.9–99.9) in the subsequent week, with 80.0% sensitivity (95% CI 51.9–95.7) and 78.3% specificity (95% CI 74.6–81.7) [32], whereas ratios above 38 carry a positive predictive value (PPV) of 36.7% (95% CI 28.4–45.7) within 4 weeks, with 66.2% sensitivity (95% CI 54.0–77.0) and 83.1% specificity (95% CI 79.4–86.3) [32]. In the Malaysian clinical practice guidelines (CPG), current preeclampsia screening relies on clinical characteristics and proteinuria only [33], which are of poor predictive value [34]. At present, women with suspected preeclampsia are unnecessarily admitted to hospital [35, 36], whilst asymptomatic severe cases are overlooked and managed as outpatient, resulting in late presentation with irreversible complications [35].

Serum sFlt-1/PlGF ratio testing (from 20 weeks’ gestation onwards) has been suggested by the latest Malaysia CPG in order to predict preeclampsia [33], however it is not widely implemented especially in government health clinics setting, despite widespread adoption in several countries [35]. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), United Kingdom (UK), has recommended sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤38 to be used as a rule-out test for suspected pre-eclampsia between 20 and 34 weeks’ gestation [37]. The German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) recommended use of second trimester sFLT-1/PlGF ratio with uterine artery Doppler for risk assessment of preeclampsia development and prognostic assessment [38].

These biomarkers may help improve early diagnosis of preeclampsia and enable prediction of maternal and fetal outcomes [11]. We set out to assess the feasibility of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes using the recently proposed single cut-off values of 38 and preeclampsia screening algorithm developed.

Materials and methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary centre in an urban setting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from December 2019 until April 2021. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of using sFlt-1/PlGF immunoassay ratio for early identification of preeclampsia and related adverse pregnancy outcomes. The study participants were monitored based on the algorithm shown in Fig 1 from enrolment into the study at ≥20 weeks’ gestation until delivery. If the sFLT-1/PlGF ratio test was negative (≤38), the blood test will be repeated weekly for continued monitoring. If the result was positive (>38), the test will be repeated four-weekly until delivery or development of preeclampsia. Maximum 4 sample of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test each participant for the purposed of controlling research cost. The outcome measure was preeclampsia and related adverse pregnancy outcomes as a comparison between positive and negative tests.

Fig 1

Preeclampsia screening algorithm.

The minimum sample size was calculated based on the formula for prospective cohort studies by Fleiss (1981) [39], with a power of 80% and confidence interval (CI) of 95% [40]. A minimum of 120 samples were required.

We included women aged ≥18 years, with systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 140–160 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90–100 mmHg or gestational hypertension or underlying chronic hypertension, and singleton pregnancies of ≥20 weeks gestation. We excluded women with confirmed diagnosis of preeclampsia or eclampsia, fetal congenital malformation, and those who refused.

The study received ethical approval from the Ministry of Health Malaysia (NMRR-19-1104-46049(IIR)) and UKM (FF-2019-371). The study conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consents were obtained from all participants.

Whole blood was collected in a 5 ml plain vacutainer tube on the recruitment day. The blood was centrifuged, then subjected to a calibrated cobas e 411 immunoassay analyser tests (Roche Diagnostics). Quality control was performed for each test by using PRECICONTROL multimarker reagent. The blood analysis was performed by a trained medical laboratory technician under the supervision of a chemical pathologist. The laboratory result was entered in an integrated laboratory management system (ILMS) linked to the hospital information system.

Primary outcome measure

Our primary outcome measure was preeclampsia as defined by the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP) [2], i.e. gestational hypertension accompanied by at least one of the following new onset conditions at or after 20 weeks’ gestation: proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction (including acute kidney injury, altered liver function, neurological complications, haematological complications or uteroplacental dysfunction).

Secondary outcomes measure

Maternal and fetal adverse pregnancy outcome including maternal death, maternal intubation, emergency caesarean section, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIVC), placental abruption, acute heart failure, low birth weight, neonatal death, intrauterine death, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, premature delivery, and low Apgar score. The percentages of completed the preeclampsia screening algorithm developed is also measured as secondary outcome (as shown in Fig 1).

The operational definition of maternal death is death of a woman during pregnancy or up to 42 days post-partum. Maternal intubation is defined as the need for maternal intubation as a result of preeclampsia and related complications. Emergency caesarean section is defined as emergency caesarean section with preeclampsia as the main indication. Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIVC), abruptio placenta, and acute heart failure are defined as complications resulting directly from preeclampsia. A low-birth-weight infant are defined as baby’s birth weight of <2.5 kg. Intrauterine death is defined as death of a fetus in utero after 22 weeks of gestation. Neonatal death is defined as death of a baby within the first 28 days of life. Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission is defined as requirement for NICU admission after birth. Premature delivery is defined as birth <37 weeks of gestation. A low Apgar score is defined as Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes after birth.

Independent variables

Our independent variables comprise sociodemographic characteristics (age, race, occupation, household income, education level), clinical features, Body mass index (BMI) classification, antenatal risk, gravida classification, parity classification, gestation at recruitment, anaemia, pre-gestational diabetes mellitus (DM), gestational DM, renal disease, autoimmune disease, previous history of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, chronic hypertension, and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.

Age was defined in years at recruitment based on date of birth, and categorized into two groups (>35 years, ≤ 35 years). Race was categorized into Malay and non-Malay according to major ethnicities in Malaysia. Occupation was classified according to International Standard Classification of Occupations and further divided into professional and non-professional groups. Household income was defined as overall income that was earned by household members, whether in cash or kind, and can be referred to as gross income. Household income was categorized into three groups Top 20 (> RM 10 960), Middle 40 (RM 4850–10959) and Below 40 (

Body mass index (BMI) calculated as body weight in kg divided by height in meter squared (kg/m2), classified according to international World Health Organization (WHO) BMI classifications and further categorized into two groups (BMI ≥25, BMI ≤24.9). Antenatal risk was categorized into yellow (high risk) and green (medium risk), according to the Malaysian antenatal risk assessment colour coding system [41]. Gravida was categorized into three groups (Gravida 1, 2–5, ≥6). Parity was categorized into three groups (Para 0, 1–4, ≥5). Gestation at recruitment was defined as period of gestation (in weeks) at recruitment, either based on the date of the last menstrual period or on ultrasonography. The gestation at recruitment was categorized into two groups (≥27 weeks, 20–26 weeks). Diseases in pregnancy i.e. anaemia, pre-gestational and gestational DM, renal disease, autoimmune disease, history of hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, and chronic hypertension were dichotomously categorized (yes, no). sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was also dichotomously categorized (positive >38, negative ≤38).

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22. Incidence of preeclampsia was calculated from the number of preeclampsia cases divided by the total recruited sample. The characteristics of the variables are described using frequency (n) and percentage (%). Simple logistic regression and Pearson Chi-square was used for bivariate analysis and further analysed using multiple logistic regression to control for potential confounders. All p-values resulted from two-sided statistical tests. Values of p<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

The diagnostic validity for sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was calculated and presented as sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and post-test probability. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and the area under the curves (AUCs) were reported.

Result

Study population

A total of 140 women were recruited between December 2019 and April 2021 as shown in Fig 2. The numbers of potentially eligible were 200. After being examined for eligibility, only 180 women were confirmed eligible. However, 40 women refused to involve in the study due to other life commitments. Only 57% (n = 80) completed the research algorithm. A total of 140 women were included in the full analysis population according to first blood sample taken.

Fig 2

Study participants flow chart.

Incidence of preeclampsia among medium to high risk mothers was 20.7% (29/140). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was significantly higher in women who developed preeclampsia (73.58 ± 93.49) compared with those who did not (13.41 ± 21.63), p = 0.002. The percentages of women who developed preeclampsia according to sFlt-1/PlGF ratio versus week of assessment are shown in A total of 5 (62.5%) women developed preeclampsia within a week of positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (>38). At the first hospital booking and in the first week after initial blood screening, 29.4% and 23.5% of cases were screened positive and developed preeclampsia respectively. The percentage of patient developed preeclampsia among positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test subsequently reduced from week to week.

Predictors of preeclampsia

shows factors associated with preeclampsia as defined by the ISSHP [2]. Simple logistic regression analysis indicated that occupation and positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (>38) at first blood sample are significantly associated with preeclampsia. On performing multivariate analyses using multiple logistic regression, adjusted analysis showed that women working as professionals with positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a higher risk of developing preeclampsia compared to non-professionals and negative sFlt-1/PlGF ratio respectively.

The association between positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and adverse pregnancy outcome

shows the association between positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test and adverse pregnancy outcome. After controlling with potential confounders including maternal characteristics, antenatal risk, underlying medical illness, gestational age and preeclampsia, adjusted analysis showed that the risk of low Apgar score (<7) at 5 minutes, low birth weight, premature delivery and baby admitted to NICU are significantly higher among positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test (>38) as compared to negative sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test (≤38).

The validity of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in predicting preeclampsia and low Apgar score at 5 minutes

shows the validity assessment of positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcome. The sensitivity of the test was low (58.6%) but the specificity was high (91.0%) in predicting preeclampsia. shows the comparison of ROC curve combined approach (maternal characteristic and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio) and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio alone in predicting both preeclampsia and significant adverse pregnancy outcome (low Apgar score). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for combined approach was 86.9% (p<0.001, 95% CI 78.7–95.0) compared with AUC for sFlt-1/PlGF ratio alone 74.8% (p<0.001, 95% CI 63.3–86.3) to predict preeclampsia, the test having high sensitivity (84.6%) and specificity (87.4%) to predict low Apgar score at 5 minutes. The AUC for combined approach was 87.8% (p<0.001, 95% CI 75.2–100.0) compared with AUC sFlt-1/PlGF ratio alone 86.0% (p<0.001, 95% CI 74.2–97.9) to predict low Apgar score at 5 minutes.

Discussion

We found that the mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was significantly higher among women who developed preeclampsia compared to women without preeclampsia, when using sFlt-1/PlGF ratio cut-off value >38 (sensitivity 58.6%; specificity 91.1%; PPV 63%; NPV 89.3% and AUC 74.8%,p<0.001; 95% CI 63.3–86.3). With combined approach (by including maternal characteristics and clinical features) the AUC improved towards 86.9% (p<0.001, 95% CI 78.7–95.0) compared with AUC sFlt-1/PlGF ratio alone in predicting preeclampsia. Other findings suggest that sFlt-1/PlGF ratio with or without clinical characteristics can help second or third trimester prediction of both early onset and late onset preeclampsia [11]. The discrepancy of these findings may be due to the relatively small sample size in our study, whereas other studies reported that the combined approach had superior predictive value compared to biomarkers in the first trimester alone [42-44]. Therefore, our study supports the predictive value of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio >38 for preeclampsia among Malaysian women with significantly higher PPV (63%) than the reported PPV (32–36%) by PROGNOSIS and PROGNOSIS Asia Study [32, 45].

The PROGNOSIS study, a large multicenter, prospective observational study conducted in 14 countries, validated a single cut-off point of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio >38 in predicting preeclampsia [32]. However, less than 10% of the study population were Asian. Another research followed to validate the cut-off point (sFlt-1/PlGF ratio >38) among Asian women (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand) between December 2014 and December 2016 but Malaysia was not involved [46]. As sFlt-1 and PlGF levels may be influenced by ethnicity [47], there is a need to validate the test in Malaysia. Both researchers assessed the value of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for ruling out preeclampsia within a week and ruling in preeclampsia within four weeks, with an established clinical value for the short-term prediction of preeclampsia in women with suspected preeclampsia, potentially helping to prevent unnecessary hospitalization and intervention. Our study evaluated the feasibility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio >38 to predict preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcome throughout pregnancy without limiting the period of outcome assessment.

A previous study on the same urban population in Kuala Lumpur revealed that women with gestational hypertension had significantly lower PlGF and higher sFlt-1 levels compared with normotensive women [48]. However, the study did not assess these biomarkers level among women with preeclampsia. Another study among 84 high risk Malaysian pregnant women who had at least one risk factor for preeclampsia observed a significantly higher median sFlt-1 and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio from 25 to 28 weeks of gestation and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio from 29 to 36 weeks in high risk women who developed preeclampsia [49]. The sFLT-1/PlGF ratio in the third trimester showed the best AUC of 87.3% (p<0.001, 95% CI 77.3–97.3) compared with second trimester AUC, which was 68.8% (p = 0.038, 95% CI 52.0–85.5). The optimized cut-off value for sFLT-1/PlGF ratio was 5.50 (sensitivity 92%; specificity 68%; PPV 32%; NPV 98%) with AUC 87.3% (95% CI, 77.3–97.3) [49]. However, the predictive value of these markers could not be clearly established due to a small samples size.

The current standard of antenatal care in maternal and child health clinics in Malaysia stratifies women at risk using clinical risk factors and a colour coding system. This has been proven to be insufficient [50]. Our finding shows that the antenatal color coding is not a significant predictor for preeclampsia. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of routine blood pressure and urine protein screening to identify women with preeclampsia [10]. The percentage of women without proteinuria who developed preeclampsia or who have proteinuria without hypertension preceding preeclampsia is unclear due to different approaches in proteinuria measurement [10]. Presence of proteinuria is associated with a worse pregnancy outcome as compared to preeclampsia without proteinuria. On the contrary, higher levels of proteinuria among women diagnosed with preeclampsia does not indicate a higher risk of severe adverse outcomes [51]. The presence or absence of proteinuria is more important than the amount of proteinuria.

The progress of preeclampsia is often unpredictable and can lead to rapid deterioration in maternal and fetal conditions. Therefore, close surveillance is mandatory during antenatal visits [36]. A decision must be made at the time of diagnosis whether to manage the patient as an outpatient or inpatient [36]. In the absence of proteinuria, the mother may be managed as an outpatient [36]. However, it is now recognized that preeclampsia may be present even without proteinuria. A highly predictive, pre-emptive, and low-cost diagnostic test is needed to guide management [52]. Early preeclampsia detection through universal or targeted screening methods may help reduce health related adverse events, particularly for newborns [53]. We found positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (>38) to have 15 times higher odds of developing preeclampsia and 6 to 17 times higher odds of having a newborn with poor outcomes. The majority of positive test mothers (62.5%) manifest preeclampsia within a week. With good NPV (89.3%) it is effective in identifying patients who will benefit from admission, close monitoring, and antenatal corticosteroids commencement in anticipation of preterm delivery [54, 55]. Thus, the test may improve maternal and child health care by early identification, early intervention and prevent subsequent bad outcomes.

Placental dysfunction causes a range of perinatal pathologies, including preeclampsia. Angiogenesis-related factors, including sFlt-1 and PlGF, play an important role in placental dysfunction. Altered levels are detectable several weeks prior to the onset of pregnancy complications [11, 56]. We found that, among mothers who developed preeclampsia within a week of assessment, 62% (5/8) had sFLT-1/PlGF ratio >38 (positive). A total of 59% (17/29) women with such positive results developed preeclampsia within a week, and majority (94%) developed preeclampsia within four weeks. However, 37.9% women who developed preeclampsia were among women with sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤38 (negative) with a small percentage of 25% (3/12) progressing to preeclampsia in less than a week of assessment. Besides the ability to predict preeclampsia, the positive test can predict Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes postnatally with a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 87.4%, PPV of 40.7% and NPV of 98.2%. The AUC was 86.0% (p<0.001, 95% CI 74.2–97.9) using sFlt-1/PlGF ratio alone. The AUC and predictive values showed improvement based on multiple logistic regression predictive values.

An interesting finding in this study was that women working as professionals were at higher risk of developing preeclampsia with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.79 (95% CI 2.80–27.58). This finding is supported by a previous study that the risk of preeclampsia increased 3.1-fold (95% CI 1.2–7.8) among women employed in high-stress jobs (high psychological demand, low decision latitude) [57]. The aOR was 2.0 (95% CI 1.0–4.3) for low-stress jobs compared to non-working women [57]. In another study, being exposed to physically demanding and stressful occupational conditions at the onset of pregnancy increased the risk of preeclampsia [58]. Women working more than five successive days without a day off had aOR 3.0 (95% CI 1.0–9.5) [58]. A significant association exists between acute and chronic occupational/domestic stress with major depression/current depressive symptoms among married professionals and managerial employees [59]. We therefore propose adding occupation as a criteria in the list of current guidelines for risk assessment of preeclampsia in order to improve preeclampsia prediction and thus prevention.

The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is useful for clinical decision-making with regard to hospitalization [60]. In addition to improving clinical care, assessment of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio helps avoid unnecessary stress and anxiety for the patient [54]. Malaysia practices a mixed public-private healthcare system [61]. Nonetheless, public hospitals and clinics are the primary source of care in Malaysia. The public sector provides for the bulk (65%) of the population, but is served by only 45% of all registered doctors, and even fewer specialists (25–30%) [62]. The heavily subsidized public sector is borne by budget provisions, with patients paying minimal fees for access to both outpatient and hospitalized care [61, 62]. Thus, a reduction in hospitalization may contribute substantially to cost-saving, and reduce the financial and workload burden in the Malaysian healthcare system [63-65].

The strength of our study lies in the prospective cohort study design, hence the temporal effect between the sFlt:PlGF and onset of preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcome can be established according to Hills criteria. The limitation of this study is that it was restricted to a single urban tertiary centre, hence producing low external validity. A number of study participants (43%) were lost to follow-up especially after the first test due to several reasons, including government enforcement of the movement control order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, work and family commitments, and logistic issues. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously if it were to be applied to a different population setting.

Conclusions

We found a higher PPV value for sFlt-1/PlGF compared to previous observations. Interestingly, we also found that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is a significant marker for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes among newborns of medium to high risk mothers. In summary, this study highlighted for the first time, the utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio as a feasible biomarker to predict preeclampsia in the Malaysian population, in combination with other parameters (maternal clinical characteristics), provided the outcome measurement period is not restricted to 4 weeks.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

13 Sep 2021

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Tarek Abdel Ghafar, M.D

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. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: please add the location at which the study has been undertaken (i.e. The feasibility of Soluble Fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase-1 (sFLT-1) and Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) ratio biomarker in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[Funding

This research received funding through the Fundamental Grant (FF-2019-371) and Matching Grant (FF-2019-371/1) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Conflict of Interest

Provision of Elecsys sFlt-1/PlGF and PreciControl Multimaker test kits from Roche Diagnostics International Ltd is acknowledged.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Generally, the design of this study is well attempted and these results must be helpful to the pregnant women in Malaysia. Interestingly, the occupation may impact on the development of preeclampsia in Malaysian.

Major revision:

In the algorithm of this study, some population may change the results of sFLT-1/PlGF ratio, positive to negative, but clinically the development of preeclampsia seems ‘one way’. If some rare cases exist in this study, please tell the number and the process or outcome of them.

Minor revision:

#1. In Table 1, according to the sentence, line 157, you should correct the small title of ‘History of PIH’ to ‘History of HDP’.

#2. In Fig. 3 you showed the wrong number in the major title. Not Fig. 2 but Fig. 3.

#3. In Table 4, you also have to correct the title, ‘1 minute’ to ‘5 minutes’.

Reviewer #2: 1. Summary of Research

In this paper, the authors evaluated the feasibility of the sFLT-1/PlGF biomarker ratio in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes using a single cut-off point of >38 among mothers in Malaysia. The study confirms that although sFLT-1/P1GF ratio is a feasible biomarker for predicting pregnancy, a combined approach with maternal clinical characteristics provides a better prediction for preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Below are some comments for the authors:

2. Specific Areas

Introduction

Language editing is recommended at line 41 of the manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

Authors should indicate the full meaning of the abbreviation, ISSHP, at the first mention in the write up at line 113 of the manuscript.

Results and Discussion

Authors indicated that 57% of the study participants completed the research algorithm. Were there reasons or factors that explain why a significant number were lost to follow up especially after the first test?

3. Additional Comments

Authors should kindly be consistent with referencing style and not mix Harvard with Vancouver as identified at line 293-294 and 310.

Reviewer #3: The author analyzes the relationship between the sFlt-1 / PlGF ratio and preeclampsia in detail. The content is very interesting and orderly. But I'm not sure what's new.　That is the reason I don't think it is suitable for this journal.　This study is very interesting, so I would be happy if you rewrite the conclusions so that you can easily understand what is new.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Timothy Kwabena Adjei

Reviewer #3: No

[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.

29 Sep 2021

EDITOR SUGGESTIONS:

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

• RESPONSE: File naming was edited to comply with the style requirements. We hope it is now correct and complies with the style requirements.

2. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: please add the location at which the study has been undertaken (i.e. The feasibility of Soluble Fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase-1 (sFLT-1) and Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) ratio biomarker in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information.

• RESPONSE: Thank you for providing these insights. We have corrected the manuscript title as per suggestion and updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

Funding

This research received funding through the Fundamental Grant (FF-2019-371) and Matching Grant (FF-2019-371/1) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Conflict of Interest

Provision of Elecsys sFlt-1/PlGF and PreciControl Multimaker test kits from Roche Diagnostics International Ltd is acknowledged.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

• RESPONSE : We have included the following statement "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials” as an updated Competing Interests statement in the cover letter

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

• RESPONSE: We have included the title page within the main document. We have listed all authors and all affiliations as per the author instructions and indicated the corresponding author.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

• RESPONSE : We have included a separate caption for each figure in the main manuscript body

REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS:

Generally, the design of this study is well attempted and these results must be helpful to the pregnant women in Malaysia. Interestingly, the occupation may impact on the development of preeclampsia in Malaysian.

6. In the algorithm of this study, some population may change the results of sFLT-1/PlGF ratio, positive to negative, but clinically the development of preeclampsia seems ‘one way’. If some rare cases exist in this study, please tell the number and the process or outcome of them.

• RESPONSE : That is an interesting query. However, there were no positive case change to negative result in our sample population.

7. In Table 2, according to the sentence, line 157, you should correct the small title of ‘History of PIH’ to ‘History of HDP’.

• RESPONSE: Thank you for this observation. I have corrected the small title of ‘History of PIH’ to ‘History of HDP’ in Table 2 in the revised manuscript.

8. In Fig. 3 you showed the wrong number in the major title. Not Fig. 2 but Fig. 3.

• RESPONSE : Our apologies for the mistake. We have included a new Figure 3 with the correct title.

9. In Table 4, you also have to correct the title, “1 minute’ to ‘5 minutes”

• RESPONSE: Thank you for this observation. I have corrected the title, “1 minute’ to ‘5 minutes” in Table 4.

REVIEWER #2 COMMENTS:

In this paper, the authors evaluated the feasibility of the sFLT-1/PlGF biomarker ratio in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes using a single cut-off point of >38 among mothers in Malaysia. The study confirms that although sFLT-1/PlGF ratio is a feasible biomarker for predicting pregnancy, a combined approach with maternal clinical characteristics provides a better prediction for preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

10. Specific Areas:

Introduction

Language editing is recommended at line 41 of the manuscript.

• RESPONSE: We agree with your assessment. Language editing has been performed as in lines 57-59 in the revised manuscript, as follows: “Identifying women at risk of developing preeclampsia for early intervention with commencement of aspirin/calcium as prophylaxis, close monitoring, and timely delivery are critical steps in the management to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes.”.

Materials and Methods:

Authors should indicate the full meaning of the abbreviation, ISSHP, at the first mention in the write up at line 113 of the manuscript.

• RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. We have stated in full the meaning of the abbreviation ISSHP on page 7, lines 134-135, as “International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy”.

Results and Discussion

Authors indicated that 57% of the study participants completed the research algorithm. Were there reasons or factors that explain why a significant number were lost to follow up especially after the first test?

• RESPONSE: You have raised an important point. There are several reasons to explain why a significant number of study participants were lost to follow up especially after the first test, including the government enforcement of the movement control order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, work and family commitments, and logistic issues. We have included this point in the Discussion Section in Lines 363-366.

Authors should kindly be consistent with referencing style and not mix Harvard with Vancouver as identified at line 293-294 and 310.

• RESPONSE: We has edited the referencing style to Vancouver format as in lines 320-321 and 339.

REVIEWER #3 COMMENTS:

The author analyzes the relationship between the sFlt-1 / PlGF ratio and preeclampsia in detail. The content is very interesting and orderly. But I'm not sure what's new.　That is the reason I don't think it is suitable for this journal.　This study is very interesting, so I would be happy if you rewrite the conclusions so that you can easily understand what is new.

• RESPONSE : Thank you for providing these useful insights. We has rewritten the conclusions and highlighted the new perspectives of this study as in lines 45-48, 278-280 and 369-373.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

19 Oct 2021

18 Nov 2021

EDITOR SUGGESTIONS:

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

• RESPONSE: We have reviewed the references. Therefore, we made some changes as stated below.

(i) There are few duplicate references:

(1) References number 60 and 61. We have deleted reference number 61 and replaced it with citation number 60.

(2) References number 58 and 59. We have deleted reference number 59 and replaced it with citation number 58.

(3) References number 32 and 45. We have deleted reference number 45 and replaced it with citation number 32.

(4) We renumbered again to make it align in both manuscript body and in the reference list.

(ii) We don’t cite any papers that have been retracted.

REVIEWER #2 COMMENTS:

Reviewer #2: Initial comments have all been addressed by authors.

Below are few additional comments for authors to address.

1. Authors should kindly review the definition of preeclampsia to be “Hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ damage…” rather than 'or' in the introduction and the entire write-up.

• RESPONSE: We agree with your assessment. We have changed the definition as below:

line 52 page 3 “Preeclampsia is characterized by the combined presentation of hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction, such as renal insufficiency, liver involvement, neurological or haematological complications, and uteroplacental dysfunction as evidenced by fetal growth restriction (FGR) (2, 6).”

Line 131 page 7 – ‘hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction’

2. Per the Aspre trial by FMF group, optimal benefits of low dose aspirin are between 12-16 gestational weeks. It will be important to know from the authors if women who were high risk for preeclampsia (chronic hypertension, previous HDP, etc) were on aspirin before being recruited into the study. If not, were they started after 20 gestational weeks? This will be essential to know because it will be unethical or controversial to delay onset of aspirin in such high risk group. Is the practice of administering LD aspirin to such high risk women incorporated in the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG)?

RESPONSE: You have raised an important point. Women who were high risk for preeclampsia were on aspirin before being recruited into this study. Our enrolment of respondents into the study starts at �  20 weeks’ gestation until delivery (Line 105, page 6). The Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) did incorporated practice of administering low dose aspirin to high-risk women for preeclampsia such as:

• Hypertensive disease during previous pregnancy

• Chronic kidney disease

• Autoimmune disease such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) or anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS)

• Type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

• Chronic hypertension

We did not delay or alter any management as written in the CPG.

Figure 1, figure 2 and figure have been save in TIF format and uploaded

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_15nov21.doc

Click here for additional data file.

24 Nov 2021

6 Dec 2021

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 has retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

RESPONSE: We have reviewed the references. Therefore, we made some changes as stated below.

There are a few duplicate references:

(1) References number 60 and 61. We have deleted reference number 61 and replaced it with citation number 60.

(2) References number 58 and 59. We have deleted reference number 59 and replaced it with citation number 58.

(3) Corrected the references cited as numbers 32 and 45. We have deleted reference number 45 and replaced it with citation number 32.

(4) We change the sequence number of reference 39 become 40 and 40 become 39 as following the text in the manuscript.

(5) We renumbered again to make it align in both the manuscript body and in the reference list.

We do not cite any papers that have been retracted.

Additional Editor Comments:

We only need the revised manuscript (clean copy) and revised manuscript with track changes and point-to-point response to the reviewers' recent comments. There are some duplicate files belonging to previous revisions. Please delete any redundant files from previous reviews when you resubmit the revision.

RESPONSE: we resubmitted the revised manuscript(clean copy). We labelled as manuscript_5th Dec21, and a revised manuscript with track changes as Revised Manuscript with Track Changes_5Dec21. We respond point-to-point response to the reviewers' recent comments. Duplication of previous revisions has been deleted in this presence resubmission version.

REVIEWER #2 COMMENTS:

few additional comments for authors to address.

1. Authors should kindly review the definition of preeclampsia to be "Hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ damage…" rather than 'or' in the introduction and the entire write-up.

• RESPONSE: We agree with your assessment. We have changed the definition as below:

line 52 page 3 "Preeclampsia is characterized by the combined presentation of hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction, such as renal insufficiency, liver involvement, neurological or haematological complications, and uteroplacental dysfunction as evidenced by fetal growth restriction (FGR) (2, 6)."

Line 131 page 7 – 'hypertension with proteinuria and/or maternal organ dysfunction'

2. Per the Aspre trial by FMF group, optimal benefits of low dose aspirin are between 12-16 gestational weeks. It will be important to know from the authors if women who were high risk for preeclampsia (chronic hypertension, previous HDP, etc) were on aspirin before being recruited into the study. If not, were they started after 20 gestational weeks? This will be essential to know because it will be unethical or controversial to delay onset of aspirin in such high risk group. Is the practice of administering LD aspirin to such high risk women incorporated in the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG)?

RESPONSE: You have raised an important point. Women who were high risk for preeclampsia were on aspirin before being recruited into this study. Our enrolment of respondents into the study starts at �  20 weeks' gestation until delivery (Line 105, page 6). The inclusion criteria for enrollment to study is stated (line 115-118). The Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) did the incorporated practice of administering low dose aspirin to high-risk women for preeclampsia such as:

• Hypertensive disease during a previous pregnancy

• Chronic kidney disease

• Autoimmune disease such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) or anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS)

• Type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

• Chronic hypertension

We did not delay or alter any management as written in the CPG.

Figure 1, figure 2 and figure have been saved in TIF format and uploaded

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_5Decv21.doc

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jan 2022

29 Jan 2022

thank you for the valuable comments. here is our response according to the each comments given.

1. Table 2: Gravida classification is not significant in univariate analysis, so it should not be included in multivariate analysis.

• RESPONSE: We have removed gravida classification in multivariate analysis and reanalyzed. The new result from multivariate analysis was updated in Table 2 (page 12,line 222, 236-238), Abstract(page 3, line 40 to 45, 48-49, 51-52) and in discussion part(page 20, line 335-337)

2. Table 3: Adjusted OR of Low birth weight, premature delivery, and NICU admission should be added.

• RESPONSE: We have added Adjusted OR of Low birth weight, premature delivery, and NICU admission in Table 3 (page 15-16, line 253) and Table 4(page 17, line 276) and description at page 14 line 250

3. Abbreviations such as PPV and NPV should be defined in full-term before their first mention in the abstract.

• RESPONSE: We have defined full-term of PPV and NPV abbreviations before their first mention in the abstract (page 3).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_29jan22.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

23 Feb 2022

The feasibility of Soluble Fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase-1 (sFlt-1) and Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) ratio biomarker in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

PONE-D-21-25053R4

Dear Dr. sutan,

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,

Muhammad Tarek Abdel Ghafar, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-25053R4

The feasibility of Soluble Fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase-1 (sFLT-1) and Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) ratio biomarker in predicting preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes among medium to high risk mothers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Dear Dr. Sutan:

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

Prof Muhammad Tarek Abdel Ghafar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

The number of cases screened as preeclampsia by week of assessment.

	sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test
Assessment week	Positive (>38)	Negative (≤38)	Total
	n(%)	n(%)
0	5(62.5%)	3(37.5%)	8(27.6%)
1	4(57.1%)	3(42.9%)	7(24.1%)
2	3(100.0%)	0(0.0%)	3(10.3%)
3	2(50.0%)	2(50.0%)	4(13.8%)
4	2(100.0%)	0(0.0%)	2(6.9%)
5	0(0.0%)	2(100.0%)	2(6.9%)
6	0(0.0%)	1(100.0%)	1(3.4%)
7	1(100.0%)	0(0.0%)	1(3.4%)
8	0(0.0%)	0(0.0%)	0(0.0%)
9	0(0.0%)	1(100.0%)	1(3.4%)
Total	17	12	29(100.0%)

Table 2

Factors associated with preeclampsia.

Variable	Preeclampsia n (%)	Non preeclampsia n (%)	Crude OR	95% CI	p	Adj. OR	95% CI	p
Age groups					0.139
More than 35 years old	12(41.4%)	63(56.8%)	0.538	(0.235;1.232)
≤ 35 years old	17(58.6%)	48(43.2%)	1.000
Race
Malay	26(89.7%)	88(79.3%)	2.265	(0.630; 0.149)	0.177
Others	3(10.3%)	23(20.7%)	1.000
Occupational classification					<0.001			<0.001
Professional	15(51.7%)	18(16.2%)	5.536	(2.282; 13.428)		6.694	(2.247;19.937)
Non-professional	14(48.3%)	93(83.8%)	1.000			1.000
Household incomed class (median income)					0.266
Top 20 (> Ringgit Malaysia 10 960)	4(13.8%)	7(6.3%)	3.214	(0.761; 13.572)	0.112
Middle 40 (Ringgit Malaysia 4850–10959)	17(58.6%)	59(53.2%)	1.621	(0.642; 4.090)	0.306
Below 40 (< Ringgit Malaysia 4849)	8(27.6%)	45(40.5%	1.000
Education level					0.541
Tertiary	23(79.3%)	82(73.9%)	0.738	(0.273; 1.992)
Secondary	6(20.7%)	29(26.1%)	1.000
Body mass index (BMI) class, kg/m 2
BMI ≥25	22(75.9%)	87(78.4%)	0.867	(0.331; 2.271)	0.773
BMI ≤24.9	7(24.1%)	24(21.6%)	1.000
Antenatal risk coded					0.445
Yellow (high risk)	4(13.3%)	22(19.8%)	0.647	(0.204; 2.052)
Green (medium risk)	26(86.7%)	89(80.2%)	1.000
Gravida classification					0.940
Gravida 1	6(20.7%)	25(22.5%)	1.200	(0.117; 12.267)	0.785
Gravida 2–5	22(75.9%)	81(73.0%)	1.358	(0.151; 12.233)	0.878
Gravida 6 and more	1(3.4%)	5(4.5%)	1.000
Parity classification					0.983
Multipara	22(75.9%)	84(75.7%)	1.010	(0.389;2.624)
Nulliparaous	7(24.1%)	27(24.3%)	1.000
POG at recruitment					0.482
20–26 weeks	3(10.3%)	17(15.3%)	0.638	(0.174;2.346)
≥27 weeks	26(89.7%)	94(84.7%)	1.000
Anaemia					0.335
Yes	7(24.1%)	18(16.2%)	1.644	(0.611; 4.420)
No	22(75.9%)	93(83.8%)	1.000
Diabetes mellitus					0.612
Yes	2(6.9%)	5(4.5%)	1.570	(0.289; 8.539)
No	27(93.1%)	106(95.5%)	1.000
Gestational DM					0.494
Yes	9(31.0%)	42(37.8%)	0.739	(0.308; 1.774)
No	20(69.0%)	69(62.2%)	1.000
Kidney disease					0.607
Yes	1(3.4%)	2(1.8%)	1.946	(0.170; 22.245)
No	28(96.6%)	109(98.2%)	1.000
Autoimmune disease					0.607
Yes	1(3.4%)	2(1.8%)	1.946	(0.170; 22.245)
No	28(96.6%)	109(98.2%)	1.000
History of HDP					0.827
Yes	2(6.9%)	9(8.1%)	0.840	(0.171; 4.116)
No	27(93.1%)	102(91.9%)	1.000
Chronic hypertension					0.054
Yes	7(24.1%)	48(43.2%)	0.418	(0.165; 1.058)
No	22(75.9%)	63(56.8%)	1.000
sFlt-1/PlGF ratio					<0.001			<0.001
Positive >38	17(58.6%)	10(9.0%)	14.308	(5.349; 38.277)		15.063	(5.206;43.557)
Negative≤38	12(41.4%)	101(91.0%)	1.000			1.000

Final model using Backward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio)

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test 0.343

Nagelkerke R Square 42.1%

Classification table 82.9%

Table 3

Regression analysis between positive sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test and adverse pregnancy outcome.

	PREGNANCY OUTCOMES
sFlt-1/PlGF ratio	present	None	Crude ORa	95% CI OR	p	Adjusted ORb	(95% CI)	p
	n (%)	n (%)
	Maternal death
Positive	0(0%)	27(19.3%)	-	-	-
Negative	0(0%)	113(80.7%)
	Intubation				0.561
Positive	1(33.3%)	26(19.0%)	2.135	(0.186;4.445)
Negative	2(66.7%)	111(81.0%)	1.000
	Caesarean section				0.386
Positive	20(21.3%)	7(15.2%)	1.506	(0.586;3.871)
Negative	74(78.7%)	39(84.8%)	1.000
	Neonatal death				0.512
Positive	0(0.0%)	27(19.4%)	0.000	(0.000;—)
Negative	1(100.0%)	112(80.6%)	1.000
	Low birth weight				<0.001			<0.001
Positive	10(52.6%)	17(14.0%)	6.797	(2.412;19.160)		6.841	(2.282;20.511)
Negative	9(47.4%)	104(86.0%)	1.000
	Premature delivery				<0.001			<0.001
Positive	16(48.5%)	11(10.5%)	8.043	(3.188;20.289)		8.821	(3.620;21.494)
Negative	17(51.5%)	94(89.5%)	1.000
	Apgar score at 5 minutes <7				0.001			0.028
Positive	11(84.6%)	16(12.6%)	38.156	(7.741;188.084)		17.387	(3.069;98.517)
Negative	2(15.4%)	111(87.4%)	1.000			1.000
	DIVC				-
Positive	0(0%)	27(19.3%)	-	-	-
Negative	0(0%)	113(80.7%)	-
	Placenta abruptio				-
Positive	1(100.0%)	26(18.7%)	-	-
Negative	0(0.0%)	113(81.3%)	-
	Acute heart failure				-
Positive	0(0%)	27(19.3%)	-	-
Negative	0(0%)	113(80.7%)	-
	NICU admission
Positive	10(50.0%)	17(14.2%)	7.081	(2.591; 19.352)	<0.001	8.305	(2.815;24.501)	<0.001
Negative	10(50.0%)	103(85.8%)	1.000
	Intrauterine death
Positive	0(0%)	27(19.3%)	-	-
Negative	0(0%)	113(80.7%)	-

a Crude odd ratio using simple logistic regression.

b Adjusted odd ratio (multiple logistic regression using Backward likelihood method, Hosmer and Lemenshow test p-value >0.05)

Table 4

The validity of sFLT-1/PlGF ratio test in predicting preeclampsia and low Apgar score at 5 minutes.

Outcome	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	LR +	LR- (95% CI)	cOR	aOR
					(95% CI)		(95% CI)	(95% CI)
Preeclampsia	0.586	0.910	0.630	0.893	6.507	0.455(0.293;0.704)	14.308	22.000
					(3.344;12.660)		(5.349;38.277)	(6.448;75.069
Apgar score at 5 minutes <7	0.846	0.874	0.407	0.982	6.716	0.176(0.049;0.631)	38.156	17.387
					(4.020;11.223)		(7.741;188.084)	(3.069;98.517)
Low birth weight	0.526	0.860	0.370	0.920	3.746	0.551(0.341;0.890)	6.797	6.841
					(2.029;6.918)		(2.412;19.160)	(2.282;20.511)
Premature delivery	0.485	0.895	0.593	0.847	4.628	0.575(0.411;0.806)	8.043	8.821
					(2.391; 8.959)		(3.188;20.289)	(3.620;21.494)
NICU admission	0.500	0.858	0.370	0.912	3.529	0.583(0.374;0.909)	7.081	8.305
					(1.896;6.570)		(2.591; 19.352)	(2.815;24.501)