Increased incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in women with a history of spontaneous preterm birth:A longitudinal linked national cohort study

Objective: Determine the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HD) in women with a history of spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB). Study design: Longitudinal linked national cohort study within the Dutch Perinatal Registry (1999–2009) on linked data among 349,291 women with a first and second singleton pregnancy in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: The incidence of HD, small for gestational age (SGA) and placental abruption in the second pregnancy. Results: Out of 349,291 women with a singleton first pregnancy, 19,991 (5.7%) had a SPTB. The incidence of HD in the second pregnancy was 8.1% in women with a previous SPTB, as compared to 5.6% in women with a previous term birth (aOR 1.49 (CI 1.41–1.57)). Also after excluding HD, SGA and/or placental abruption in the first pregnancy, women with a history of SPTB had a higher risk of HD in their second pregnancy compared to women with a previous term birth (4.6% versus 2.7%, aOR 1.77 (CI 1.64–191)). Similarly, the incidence of SGA and placental abruption was higher in the second pregnancy in women with a history of SPTB compared to term birth in the first pregnancy. Conclusions: Women with a history of SPTB are at elevated risk of HD in the subsequent pregnancy. These results support shared pathophysiology between SPTB and HD

Pregnant women's willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing induction of labor at 39 weeks versus expectant management: A survey in the Netherlands

IntroductionA randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the United States, the ARRIVE trial, has indicated that induction of labor (IOL) in low-risk nulliparous women with a gestational age (GA) of 39 weeks compared to expectant management (EM) resulted in a significant lower rate of cesarean deliveries. The Dutch maternity care system is different compared to the United States with, among other factors, an overall significantly lower percentage of caesarean sections (CS). To investigate whether IOL has a favorable outcome in the Dutch maternity care system, a new trial is advised. In this questionnaire-based study we aim to evaluate whether Dutch low-risk pregnant women would be willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks to EM. Materials and methodsWe conducted an online survey in 2020 in the Netherlands. Respondent recruitment took place both in outpatient clinics at hospitals and midwife practices and via social media. Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with singleton gestation, GA ≤ 39 weeks, age 18 years or older and residency in the Netherlands. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation, a history of a CS, planned IOL or CS in current pregnancy and GA > 39 weeks. A subgroup was formed of low risk (receiving primary care) nulliparous women with a gestational age between 34 and 39 weeks, comparable with the ARRIVE trial. ResultsThree hundred eighty respondents participated. Of all respondents (nulli- and multiparous), 47 (12.4%) would be willing to participate in the hypothetical RCT and 70 (18.4%) might be willing to participate. Amongst the 70 women in the subgroup 11 women (15.7%) would be willing to participate and 17 (24.3%) might be willing to participate. Discussion and conclusionCalculating sample size in a country with a low CS rate, in relation to 69.2% of women are not willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks with EM, would require >18.000 women to be counselled for participation. We believe such a study is a challenge in the Netherlands

Low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour - the APRIL study: A multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial

Background: Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) is a major problem in obstetrics and affects an estimated 15 million pregnancies worldwide annually. A history of previous preterm birth is the strongest risk factor for preterm birth, and recurrent spontaneous preterm birth affects more than 2.5 million pregnancies each year. A recent meta-analysis showed possible benefits of the use of low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. We will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of low dose aspirin in comparison with placebo in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in a randomized clinical trial. Methods/design: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth in a singleton pregnancy (22-37 weeks of gestation) will be asked to participate in a multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Women will be randomized to low dose aspirin (80 mg once daily) or placebo, initiated from 8 to 16 weeks up to maximal 36 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure will be preterm birth, defined as birth at a gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be a composite of adverse neonatal outcome and maternal outcomes, including subgroups of prematurity, as well as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and costs from a healthcare perspective. Preterm birth will be analyzed as a group, as well as separately for spontaneous or indicated onset. Analysis will be performed by intention to treat. In total, 406 pregnant women have to be randomized to show a reduction of 35% in preterm birth from 36 to 23%. If aspirin is effective in preventing preterm birth, we expect that there will be cost savings, because of the low costs of aspirin. To evaluate this, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing preventive treatment with aspirin with placebo. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence as to whether or not low dose aspirin is (cost-) effective in reducing recurrence of spontaneous preterm birth. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration number of the Dutch Trial Register: NTR 5675. EudraCT-registration number: 2015-003220-31

Evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour (the APRIL study) : A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Funding: MdB, LV, TN, BM, MO and CdG received funding from ZonMw, The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant number 836041006). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Long-term outcomes following antenatal exposure to low-dose aspirin: study protocol for the 4-year follow-up of the APRIL randomised controlled trial

Introduction The use of low-dose aspirin by pregnant women to prevent preterm pre-eclampsia is gradually increasing. The administration of aspirin during pregnancy improves perinatal outcome, which could translate into improved child outcome in the long term. However, antenatal exposure to aspirin could have adverse effects on child development that may manifest later in life. The aim of this follow-up study is to assess the long-term effects of antenatal exposure to low-dose aspirin compared with placebo on survival, (neuro)development, behaviour and general health at 4 years corrected age. Methods and analysis This is a follow-up study of the Dutch double-blind randomised controlled APRIL trial which assessed the effectiveness of treatment with aspirin (80 mg daily) compared with placebo for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. Treatment was initiated before 16 weeks of gestation and continued until 36 weeks or birth. We aim to follow-up all 379 children born to women who participated in the APRIL trial and survived the neonatal period, at the corrected age of 4 years. The main outcomes are (neuro)development as assessed by the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, and behaviour as assessed by the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire. Additional outcomes include mortality, growth and general health from birth up to 4 years, and a composite outcome including mortality, abnormal (neuro)development and problem behaviour. Analyses will be performed by intention-to-treat using a superiority design. Ethics and dissemination Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam Medical Center (no. W20 289#20.325). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Trial registration number The APRIL trial (NTR5675, NL5553; EudraCT number 2015-003220-31) and the APRIL follow-up study (NL8950) are registered in the Dutch trial register. The study is funded by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development research institute

Trial by Dutch Laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing.:Part II - Women's Perspectives

Contains fulltext : 171863.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences and decision-making among high-risk pregnant women offered a choice between Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), invasive testing or no further testing. METHODS: Nationwide implementation study (TRIDENT) offering NIPT as contingent screening test for women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined testing (>1:200) or medical history. A questionnaire was completed after counseling assessing knowledge, attitudes and participation following the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. RESULTS: A total of 1091/1253 (87%) women completed the questionnaire. Of these, 1053 (96.5%) underwent NIPT, 37 (3.4%) invasive testing and 1 (0.1%) declined testing. 91.7% preferred NIPT because of test safety. Overall, 77.9% made an informed choice, 89.8% had sufficient knowledge and 90.5% had positive attitudes towards NIPT. Women with intermediate (odds ratio (OR) = 3.51[1.70-7.22], p < 0.001) or high educational level (OR = 4.36[2.22-8.54], p < 0.001) and women with adequate health literacy (OR = 2.60[1.36-4.95], p = 0.004) were more likely to make an informed choice. Informed choice was associated with less decisional conflict and less anxiety (p < 0.001). Intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome was higher among women undergoing invasive testing (86.5%) compared to those undergoing NIPT (58.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women had sufficient knowledge and made an informed choice. Continuous attention for counseling is required, especially for low-educated and less health-literate women. (c) 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

A generalized invariant imbedding equation II

Research into fetal development and medicin

Pessary or progesterone to prevent preterm birth in women with short cervical length.: Protocol of the 4–6 year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial (Quadruple-P)

INTRODUCTION: Vaginal progesterone and a cervical pessary are both interventions that are investigated for the prevention of preterm birth (PTB). Thus far, beneficial or harmful effects of these interventions on long-term child health and development are described, but evidence is not robust enough to draw firm conclusions. With this follow-up study, we intent to investigate if progesterone or a pessary is superior for the prevention of PTB considering the child's health at 4-6 years of corrected age. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a follow-up study of the Quadruple-P trial; a multicentre, randomised clinical trial (NL42926.018.13, Eudractnumber 2013-002884-24) which randomises women with an asymptomatic midtrimester short cervix to daily progesterone or a pessary for the prevention of PTB. All children born to mothers who participated in the Quadruple-P study (n=628 singletons and n=332 multiples) will be eligible for follow-up at 4-6 years of corrected age. Children will be assessed using parental questionnaires. Main outcomes are child (neuro)development and behaviour. Other outcomes include child mortality, growth and general health. A composite of adverse child outcomes will be compared between the progesterone and pessary groups reporting OR and the corresponding 95% CI. Analyses will be performed separately for singletons and multiples and using the intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam UMC confirmed that de Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) did not apply to our study (W20_481 #20.531). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with stakeholders and participants. This protocol is published before analysis of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NL9646)