Progress of the ALIFE2 study : a dynamic road towards more evidence

Investigator-initiated studies are invaluable, especially in fields that are not particularly of interest for the pharmaceutical industry because they are either less profitable or concern special patient groups such as pregnant women. However, designing, conducting, and completing an investigator-initiated randomised controlled trial is challenging. Patients and physicians' preferences, ethics requirements, (international) legislation and funding are all areas where such challenges are encountered. The Anticoagulants for LIving FEtuses (ALIFE)2 study (NTR3361) is an example of an investigator initiated international multicenter trial that progresses slowly, at least initially, as many challenges had to be overcome. Here, we discuss the challenges we faced during the course of the ALIFE2 study up till now and we explain how some of these challenges can be tackled or even avoided

Pregnancy outcomes in women with Budd-Chiari syndrome or portal vein thrombosis A multicentre retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current practice and outcomes of pregnancy in women previously diagnosed with Budd-Chiari syndrome and/or portal vein thrombosis, with and without concomitant portal hypertension. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicentre retrospective cohort study between 2008-2021. POPULATION: Women who conceived in the predefined period after the diagnosis of Budd-Chiari syndrome and/or portal vein thrombosis. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We collected data on diagnosis and clinical features. The primary outcomes were maternal mortality and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes included maternal, neonatal and obstetric complications. RESULTS: Forty-five women (12 Budd-Chiari syndrome, 33 portal vein thrombosis; 76 pregnancies) were included. Underlying prothrombotic disorders were present in 23 of 45 women (51%). Thirty-eight women (84%) received low-molecular-weight heparin during pregnancy. Of 45 first pregnancies, 11 (24%) ended in pregnancy loss and 34 (76%) resulted in live birth of which 27 at term age (79% of live births and 60% of pregnancies). No maternal deaths were observed, one woman developed pulmonary embolism during pregnancy and two women (4%) had variceal bleeding requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The high number of term live births (79%) and lower than expected risk of pregnancy-related maternal and neonatal morbidity in our cohort suggest that Budd-Chiari syndrome and/or portal vein thrombosis should not be considered as an absolute contra-indication for pregnancy. Individualized, nuanced counselling and a multidisciplinary pregnancy surveillance approach are essential in this patient population

Heavy menstrual bleeding on direct factor Xa inhibitors: Rationale and design of the MEDEA study

Background: In premenopausal women, treatment with direct oral factor Xa inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Treatment with the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran appears to be associated with a reduced risk of HMB compared with VKA. These findings come from small observational studies or post hoc analyses of trials in which HMB was not a primary outcome. Use of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period may be effective in patients with HMB, but prospective data regarding efficacy and safety in patients on anticoagulant treatment are lacking. Rationale and Design: A direct comparison of a factor Xa inhibitor and a thrombin inhibitor with HMB as primary outcome, as well as an evaluation of the effects of adding tranexamic acid in women with anticoagulant-associated HMB is highly relevant for clinical practice. The MEDEA study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate management strategies in premenopausal women with HMB associated with factor Xa inhibitor therapy. Outcomes: Women using factor Xa inhibitors with proven HMB, as assessed by a pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score of >150, will be randomized to one of three study arms: (i) switch to dabigatran; (ii) continue factor Xa inhibitor with addition of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period; or (iii) continue factor Xa inhibitor without intervention. The primary outcome is the difference in PBAC score before and after randomization. Here, we present the rationale and highlight several unique features in the design of the study

Antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss in antiphospholipid syndrome—What is the evidence?

Aspirin and heparin are widely used to reduce the risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid syndrome. This practice is based on only a few intervention studies, and uncertainty regarding benefits and risk remains. In this case-based review, we summarize the available evidence and address the questions that are most important for clinical practice. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of heparin (low molecular weight heparin [LMWH] or unfractionated heparin [UFH]), aspirin, or both on live birth rates in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss. Eleven trials including 1672 women met the inclusion criteria. Aspirin only did not increase live birth rate compared to placebo in one trial of 40 women (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–1.25). One trial of 141 women reported a higher live birth rate with LMWH only than with aspirin only (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.00–1.43). Five trials totaling 1295 women compared heparin plus aspirin with aspirin only. The pooled RR for live birth was 1.27 (95% CI 1.09–1.49) in favor of heparin plus aspirin. There was significant heterogeneity between the subgroups of LMWH and UFH (RR for LWMH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04–1.38; RR for UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.74, 95% CI: 1.28–2.35; I2 78.9%, p =.03). Characteristics of participants and adverse events were not uniformly reported. Heparin (LMWH or UFH) plus aspirin may improve live birth rates in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and antiphospholipid antibodies, but evidence is of low certainty

Sex matters: Practice 5P's when treating young women with venous thromboembolism

Sex matters when it comes to venous thromboembolism (VTE). We defined 5P's – period, pill, prognosis, pregnancy, and postthrombotic syndrome – that should be discussed with young women with VTE. Menstrual blood loss (Period) can be aggravated by anticoagulant therapy. This seems particularly true for direct oral anticoagulants. Abnormal uterine bleeding can be managed by hormonal therapy, tranexamic acid, or modification of treatment. The use of combined oral contraceptives (Pill) is a risk factor for VTE. The magnitude of the risk depends on progestagen types and estrogen doses used. In women using therapeutic anticoagulation, concomitant hormonal therapy does not increase the risk of recurrent VTE. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and low-dose progestin-only pills do not increase the risk of VTE. In young women VTE is often provoked by transient hormonal risk factors that affects prognosis. Sex is incorporated as predictor in recurrent VTE risk assessment models. However, current guidelines do not propose using these to guide treatment duration. Pregnancy increases the risk of VTE by 4-fold to 5-fold. Thrombophilia and obstetric risk factors further increase the risk of pregnancy-related VTE. In women with a history of VTE, the risk of recurrence during pregnancy or post partum appears to be influenced by risk factors present during the first VTE. In most women with a history of VTE, antepartum and postpartum thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is indicated. Women generally are affected by VTE at a younger age then men, and they have to deal with long-term complications (Post-thrombotic syndrome) of deep vein thrombosis early in life

Aspirin or heparin or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss

Background: Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications. Objectives: To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aß2-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aß2GPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive). Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors. Selection criteria: Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Main results: Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women). Authors' conclusions: The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile

Women's health in The BMJ: a data science history

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the representation of women's health has changed in clinical studies over the course of 70 years. DESIGN: Observational study of 71 866 research articles published between 1948 and 2018 in The BMJ. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of women-specific health topics over time. General linear, additive and segmented regression models were used to estimate trends. RESULTS: Over 70 years, the overall odds that a word in a BMJ research article was 'woman' or 'women' increased by an annual factor of 1.023, but this rate of increase varied by clinical specialty with some showing little or no change. The odds that an article was about some aspect of women-specific health increased much more slowly, by an annual factor of 1.004. The incidence of articles about particular areas of women-specific medicine such as pregnancy did not show a general increase, but rather fluctuated over time. The incidence of articles making any mention of women, gender or sex declined between 1948 and 2005, after which it rose steeply so that by 2018 few papers made no mention of them at all. CONCLUSIONS: Over time women have become ever more prominent in BMJ research articles. However, the importance of women-specific health topics has waxed and waned as researchers responded ephemerally to medical advances, public health programmes, and sociolegal changes. The appointment of a woman editor-inchief in 2005 may have had a dramatic effect on whether women were mentioned in research articles

Heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia (ALIFE2) : an international open-label, randomised controlled trial

Anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia. We aimed to assess use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus standard care in this population. The ALIFE2 trial was an international open-label, randomised controlled trial undertaken in hospitals in the UK (n=26), the Netherlands (n=10), the USA (n=2), Belgium (n=1), and Slovenia (n=1). Women aged 18-42 years who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia, and who were trying to conceive or were already pregnant (≤7 weeks' gestation), were eligible for inclusion. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to use low-dose LMWH or not (alongside standard care in both groups) once they had a positive urine pregnancy test. LMWH was started at or before 7 weeks' gestation and continued until the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was livebirth rate, assessed in all women with available data. Safety outcomes included bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, and skin reactions, and were assessed in all randomly assigned women who reported a safety event. The trial was registered within the Dutch Trial Register (NTR3361) and EudraCT (UK: 2015-002357-35). Between Aug 1, 2012, and Jan 30, 2021, 10 625 women were assessed for eligibility, 428 were registered, and 326 conceived and were randomly assigned (164 to LMWH and 162 to standard care). 116 (72%) of 162 women with primary outcome data in the LMWH group and 112 (71%) of 158 in the standard care group had livebirths (adjusted odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·78; absolute risk difference, 0·7%, 95% CI -9·2% to 10·6%). 39 (24%) of 164 women in the LMWH group and 37 (23%) of 162 women in the standard care group reported adverse events. LMWH did not result in higher livebirth rates in women who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia. We do not advise use of LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia, and we advise against screening for inherited thrombophilia in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Heavy menstrual bleeding on direct factor Xa inhibitors: Rationale and design of the MEDEA study

Background: In premenopausal women, treatment with direct oral factor Xa inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Treatment with the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran appears to be associated with a reduced risk of HMB compared with VKA. These findings come from small observational studies or post hoc analyses of trials in which HMB was not a primary outcome. Use of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period may be effective in patients with HMB, but prospective data regarding efficacy and safety in patients on anticoagulant treatment are lacking. Rationale and Design: A direct comparison of a factor Xa inhibitor and a thrombin inhibitor with HMB as primary outcome, as well as an evaluation of the effects of adding tranexamic acid in women with anticoagulant-associated HMB is highly relevant for clinical practice. The MEDEA study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate management strategies in premenopausal women with HMB associated with factor Xa inhibitor therapy. Outcomes: Women using factor Xa inhibitors with proven HMB, as assessed by a pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score of >150, will be randomized to one of three study arms: (i) switch to dabigatran; (ii) continue factor Xa inhibitor with addition of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period; or (iii) continue factor Xa inhibitor without intervention. The primary outcome is the difference in PBAC score before and after randomization. Here, we present the rationale and highlight several unique features in the design of the study