Placental growth factor testing for suspected pre‐eclampsia: a cost‐effectiveness analysis

Objective To calculate the cost‐effectiveness of implementing PlGF testing alongside a clinical management algorithm in maternity services in the UK, compared with current standard care. Design Cost‐effectiveness analysis. Setting Eleven maternity units participating in the PARROT stepped‐wedge cluster‐randomised controlled trial. Population Women presenting with suspected pre‐eclampsia between 20+0 and 36+6 weeks’ gestation. Methods Monte Carlo simulation utilising resource use data and maternal adverse outcomes. Main outcome measures Cost per maternal adverse outcome prevented. Results Clinical care with PlGF testing costs less than current standard practice and resulted in fewer maternal adverse outcomes. There is a total cost‐saving of UK£149 per patient tested, when including the cost of the test. This represents a potential cost‐saving of UK£2,891,196 each year across the NHS in England. Conclusions Clinical care with PlGF testing is associated with the potential for cost‐savings per participant tested when compared with current practice via a reduction in outpatient attendances, and improves maternal outcomes. This economic analysis supports a role for implementation of PlGF testing in antenatal services for the assessment of women with suspected pre‐eclampsia. Tweetable abstract Placental growth factor testing for suspected pre‐eclampsia is cost‐saving and improves maternal outcomes

Placental growth factor testing to assess women with suspected pre-eclampsia: a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Previous prospective cohort studies have shown that angiogenic factors have a high diagnostic accuracy in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, but we remain uncertain of the effectiveness of these tests in a real-world setting. We therefore aimed to determine whether knowledge of the circulating concentration of placental growth factor (PlGF), an angiogenic factor, integrated with a clinical management algorithm, decreased the time for clinicians to make a diagnosis in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, and whether this approach reduced subsequent maternal or perinatal adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial in 11 maternity units in the UK, which were each responsible for 3000-9000 deliveries per year. Women aged 18 years and older who presented with suspected pre-eclampsia between 20 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 36 weeks and 6 days of gestation, with a live, singleton fetus were invited to participate by the clinical research team. Suspected pre-eclampsia was defined as new-onset or worsening of existing hypertension, dipstick proteinuria, epigastric or right upper-quadrant pain, headache with visual disturbances, fetal growth restriction, or abnormal maternal blood tests that were suggestive of disease (such as thrombocytopenia or hepatic or renal dysfunction). Women were approached individually, they consented for study inclusion, and they were asked to give blood samples. We randomly allocated the maternity units, representing the clusters, to blocks. Blocks represented an intervention initiation time, which occurred at equally spaced 6-week intervals throughout the trial. At the start of the trial, all units had usual care (in which PlGF measurements were also taken but were concealed from clinicians and women). At the initiation time of each successive block, a site began to use the intervention (in which the circulating PlGF measurement was revealed and a clinical management algorithm was used). Enrolment of women continued for the duration of the blocks either to concealed PlGF testing, or after implementation, to revealed PlGF testing. The primary outcome was the time from presentation with suspected pre-eclampsia to documented pre-eclampsia in women enrolled in the trial who received a diagnosis of pre-eclampsia by their treating clinicians. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 16842031. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2016, and Oct 27, 2017, we enrolled and assessed 1035 women with suspected pre-eclampsia. 12 (1%) women were found to be ineligible. Of the 1023 eligible women, 576 (56%) women were assigned to the intervention (revealed testing) group, and 447 (44%) women were assigned to receive usual care with additional concealed testing (concealed testing group). Three (1%) women in the revealed testing group were lost to follow-up, so 573 (99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. One (99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. The median time to pre-eclampsia diagnosis was 4·1 days with concealed testing versus 1·9 days with revealed testing (time ratio 0·36, 95% CI 0·15-0·87; p=0·027). Maternal severe adverse outcomes were reported in 24 (5%) of 447 women in the concealed testing group versus 22 (4%) of 573 women in the revealed testing group (adjusted odds ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·11-0·96; p=0·043), but there was no evidence of a difference in perinatal adverse outcomes (15% vs 14%, 1·45, 0·73-2·90) or gestation at delivery (36·6 weeks vs 36·8 weeks; mean difference -0·52, 95% CI -0·63 to 0·73). INTERPRETATION: We found that the availability of PlGF test results substantially reduced the time to clinical confirmation of pre-eclampsia. Where PlGF was implemented, we found a lower incidence of maternal adverse outcomes, consistent with adoption of targeted, enhanced surveillance, as recommended in the clinical management algorithm for clinicians. Adoption of PlGF testing in women with suspected pre-eclampsia is supported by the results of this study. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research

Placental growth factor measurements in the assessment of women with suspected preeclampsia: a stratified analysis of the PARROT trial

Objective Placental growth factor testing decreases time to recognition of preeclampsia and may reduce severe maternal adverse outcomes. This analysis aims to describe the clinical phenotype of women by PlGF concentration, and to determine the mechanism(s) underpinning the reduction in severe maternal adverse outcomes in the PARROT trial, in order to inform how PlGF testing may be optimally used within clinical management algorithms. Study design This was a planned secondary analysis from the PARROT trial that compared revealed PlGF testing and management guidance with usual care in the assessment of women with suspected preterm preeclampsia. Main outcome measures Maternal and perinatal outcomes following stratification of women by trial group, and measured PlGF concentration. Results 1006 women were included. PlGF < 100 pg/ml identified women with more marked hypertension, increased adverse maternal outcomes and preterm delivery rates, and higher rates of small for gestational age infants. There was a reduction in adverse maternal outcomes in women whose results were revealed when PlGF levels were 12–100 pg/ml compared to usual care (3.8% vs 6.9%; aOR 0.15(95% CI 0.03–0.92). There was no significant difference in gestation at delivery between concealed or revealed groups in any PlGF categories. Conclusion Low PlGF concentrations are associated with severe preeclampsia. The reduction in severe adverse maternal outcomes may be mediated through quicker diagnosis and intensive surveillance, as recommended by the management algorithm for those at increased risk. PlGF is particularly beneficial in those who test 12–100 pg/ml, as these may be women with silent multi-organ disease who otherwise may go undetected

Can placental growth factors explain birthweight variation in offspring of women with type 1 diabetes?

Aims/hypothesis: Maternal hyperglycaemia alone does not explain the incidence of large offspring amongst women with type 1 diabetes. The objective of the study was to determine if there is an association between placental function, as measured by angiogenic factors, and offspring birthweight z score in women with type 1 diabetes. Methods: This cohort study included samples from 157 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes (CONCEPTT) trial participants. Correlations were estimated between birthweight z score and placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase (sFlt-1) levels measured at baseline and at 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between birthweight z score and placental health, as measured by PlGF and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, stratified by glycaemic status (continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c measures) and adjusted for potential confounders of maternal BMI, smoking and weight gain. Higher PlGF levels and lower sFlt-1/PlGF ratios represent healthy placentas, while lower PlGF levels and higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratios represent unhealthy placentas. Results: Among CONCEPTT participants, the slopes relating PlGF levels to birthweight z scores differed according to maternal glycaemia at 34 weeks of gestation (p = 0.003). With optimal maternal glycaemia (HbA1c 30%), increasing PlGF values were associated with heavier infants. Those with a healthy placenta (PlGF > 100) and suboptimal glycaemic control had a higher mean z score (2.45) than those with an unhealthy placenta (mean z score = 1.86). Similar relationships were seen when using sFlt-1/PlGF ratio as a marker for a healthy vs unhealthy placenta. Conclusions/interpretation: In women with type 1 diabetes, infant birthweight is influenced by both glycaemic status and placental function. In women with suboptimal glycaemia, infant birthweight was heavier when placentas were healthy. Suboptimal placental function should be considered in the setting of suboptimal glycaemia and apparently ‘normal’ birthweight. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.

Effect of a novel vital sign device on maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: In 2015, an estimated 303 000 women died in pregnancy and childbirth. Obstetric haemorrhage, sepsis, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy account for more than 50% of maternal deaths worldwide. There are effective treatments for these pregnancy complications, but they require early detection by measurement of vital signs and timely administration to save lives. The primary aim of this trial was to determine whether implementation of the CRADLE Vital Sign Alert and an education package into community and facility maternity care in low-resource settings could reduce a composite of all-cause maternal mortality or major morbidity (eclampsia and hysterectomy). Methods: We did a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial in ten clusters across Africa, India, and Haiti, introducing the device into routine maternity care. Each cluster contained at least one secondary or tertiary hospital and their main referral facilities. Clusters crossed over from existing routine care to the CRADLE intervention in one of nine steps at 2-monthly intervals, with CRADLE devices replacing existing equipment at the randomly allocated timepoint. A computer-generated randomly allocated sequence determined the order in which the clusters received the intervention. Because of the nature of the intervention, this trial was not masked. Data were gathered monthly, with 20 time periods of 1 month. The primary composite outcome was at least one of eclampsia, emergency hysterectomy, and maternal death. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN41244132. Findings: Between April 1, 2016, and Nov 30, 2017, among 536 223 deliveries, the primary outcome occurred in 4067 women, with 998 maternal deaths, 2692 eclampsia cases, and 681 hysterectomies. There was an 8% decrease in the primary outcome from 79·4 per 10 000 deliveries pre-intervention to 72·8 per 10 000 deliveries post-intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·86–0·97; p=0·0056). After planned adjustments for variation in event rates between and within clusters over time, the unexpected degree of variability meant we were unable to judge the benefit or harms of the intervention (OR 1·22, 95% CI 0·73–2·06; p=0·45). Interpretation: There was an absolute 8% reduction in primary outcome during the trial, with no change in resources or staffing, but this reduction could not be directly attributed to the intervention due to variability. We encountered unanticipated methodological challenges with this trial design, which can provide valuable learning for future research and inform the trial design of future international stepped-wedge trials. Funding: Newton Fund Global Research Programme: UK Medical Research Council; Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India; and UK Department of International Development