Study protocol: Cost effectiveness of two strategies to implement the NVOG guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy: An innovative strategy including a computerised decision support system compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback, a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hypertensive disease in pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal mortality in the Netherlands. Seventeen percent of the clinical pregnancies are complicated by hypertension and 2% by preeclampsia. The Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG) has developed evidence-based guidelines on the management of hypertension in pregnancy and chronic hypertension. Previous studies showed a low adherence rate to other NVOG guidelines and a large variation in usual care in the different hospitals. An explanation is that the NVOG has no general strategy of practical implementation and evaluation of its guidelines. The development of an effective and cost effective implementation strategy to improve adherence to the guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy is needed.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The objective of this study is to assess the cost effectiveness of an innovative implementation strategy of the NVOG guidelines on hypertension including a computerised decision support system (BOS) compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside will be performed. Both pregnant women who develop severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia and professionals involved in the care for these women will participate. The main outcome measures are a combined rate of major maternal complications and process indicators extracted from the guidelines. A total of 472 patients will be included in both groups. For analysis, descriptive as well as regression techniques will be used. A cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and from a societal perspective. Cost effectiveness ratios will be calculated using bootstrapping techniques.</p

A core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia research: an international consensus development study

Objective To develop a core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia. Design Consensus development study. Setting International. Population Two hundred and eight‐one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated. Methods Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique. Results A long‐list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre‐eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in‐depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre‐eclampsia. Forty‐seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small‐for‐gestational‐age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support. Conclusions The core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies

Do labetalol and methyldopa have different effects on pregnancy outcome? Analysis of data from the Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial

Objective To compare pregnancy outcomes, accounting for allocated group, between methyldopa-treated and labetalol-treated women in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914) of 'less tight' versus 'tight' control of pregnancy hypertension. Design Secondary analysis of CHIPS Trial cohort. Setting International randomised controlled trial (94 sites, 15 countries). Population or sample Of 987 CHIPS recruits, 481/566 (85.0%) women treated with antihypertensive therapy at randomisation. Of 981 (99.4%) women followed to delivery, 656/745 (88.1%) treated postrandomisation. Methods Logistic regression to compare outcomes among women who took methyldopa or labetalol, adjusted for the influence of baseline factors. Main outcome measures CHIPS primary (perinatal loss or high level neonatal care for >48 hours) and secondary (serious maternal complications) outcomes, birthweight <10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia and delivery at <34 or <37 weeks. Results Methyldopa and labetalol were used commonly at randomisation (243/987, 24.6% and 238/987, 24.6%, respectively) and post-randomisation (224/981, 22.8% and 433/981, 44.1%, respectively). Following adjusted analyses, methyldopa (versus labetalol) at randomisation was associated with fewer babies with birthweight <10th centile [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.48; 95% CI 0.20-0.87]. Methyldopa (versus labetalol) postrandomisation was associated with fewer CHIPS primary outcomes (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.00), birthweight <10th centile (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.320.92), severe hypertension (aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31-0.83), preeclampsia (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36-0.85), and delivery at <34 weeks (aOR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.96) or <37 weeks (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85). Conclusion These nonrandomised comparisons are subject to residual confounding, but women treated with methyldopa (versus labetalol), particularly those with pre-existing hypertension, may have had better outcome