Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes. DESIGN: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial SETTING: 46 UK maternity units POPULATION: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. PRIMARY LONG-TERM OUTCOME: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. RESULTS: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management. At 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (standard deviation (SD) 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of -2.4 (95% CI -5.4 to 0.5) points. CONCLUSION: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management is pursued. Because of lower than anticipated follow-up, there was limited power to demonstrate these scores were not different, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important

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

Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women with Suspected Preterm Preeclampsia:A Stratified Analysis of the PARROT-2 Trial

BACKGROUND: PlGF (placental growth factor)-based testing reduces severe maternal adverse outcomes. Repeat PlGF-based testing is not associated with improved perinatal or maternal outcomes. This planned secondary analysis aimed to determine whether there is a subgroup of women who benefit from repeat testing. METHODS: Pregnant individuals with suspected preterm preeclampsia were randomized to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared with usual care where testing was concealed. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were stratified by trial group, by initial PlGF-based test result, and by PlGF-based test type (PlGF or sFlt-1 [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1]/PlGF ratio). RESULTS: A total of 1252 pregnant individuals were included. Abnormal initial PlGF-based test identified a more severe phenotype of preeclampsia, at increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Repeat testing was not significantly associated with clinical benefit in women with abnormal initial results. Of women with a normal initial result, 20% developed preeclampsia, with the majority at least 3 to 4 weeks after initial presentation. Repeat test results were more likely to change from normal to abnormal in symptomatic women (112/415; 27%) compared with asymptomatic women (163/890; 18%). A higher proportion of symptomatic women who changed from normal to abnormal were diagnosed with preeclampsia, compared with asymptomatic women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate evidence of the clinical benefit of repeating PlGF-based testing if the initial result is abnormal. Judicious use of repeat PlGF-based testing to stratify risk may be considered at least 2 weeks after a normal initial test result, particularly in women who have symptoms or signs of preeclampsia. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN85912420; Unique identifier: ISRCTN85912420.</p

Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): A randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveWe evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes.DesignParallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial.SettingForty-six maternity units in the UK.PopulationWomen with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks of gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management.Main outcome measuresInfant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities – Revised (PARCA-R) composite score.ResultsBetween 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 women allocated to planned delivery and 451 women allocated to expectant management. At the 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) allocated to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (SD 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of −2.4 points (95% CI −5.4 to 0.5 points).ConclusionsIn infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management was pursued. With the lower than anticipated follow-up rate there was limited power to demonstrate that these scores did not differ, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important

Repeat placental growth factor-based testing in women with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia (PARROT-2): a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundPlacental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting pre-eclampsia needing delivery, significantly reducing time to diagnosis and severe maternal adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of repeat PlGF-based testing is unclear. We aimed to determine whether repeat PlGF-based testing (using a clinical management algorithm and nationally recommended thresholds) reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant individuals with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia.MethodsIn this multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, done in 22 maternity units across England, Scotland, and Wales, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing or concealed repeat testing with usual care. The intervention was not masked to women or partners, or clinicians or data collectors, due to the nature of the trial. The trial statistician was masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. The primary analysis was by the intention-to-treat principle, with a per-protocol analysis restricted to women managed according to their allocation group. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 85912420.FindingsBetween Dec 17, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1253 pregnant women were recruited and randomly assigned treatment; one patient was excluded due to randomisation error. 625 women were allocated to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing and 627 women were allocated to usual care with concealed repeat PlGF-based testing (mean age 32·3 [SD 5·7] years; 879 [70%] white). One woman in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group was lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the primary perinatal composite outcome between the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (195 [31·2%]) of 625 women) compared with the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (174 [27·8%] of 626 women; relative risk 1·21 [95% CI 0·95-1·33]; p=0·18). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were four serious adverse events in the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group and six in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group; all serious adverse events were deemed unrelated to the intervention by the site principal investigators and chief investigator.InterpretationRepeat PlGF-based testing in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes. In a high-income setting with a low prevalence of adverse outcomes, universal, routine repeat PlGF-based testing of all individuals with suspected pre-eclampsia is not recommended.FundingTommy's Charity, Jon Moulton Charitable Trust, and National Institute for Health and Care Research Guy's and St Thomas' Biomedical Research Centre

Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women With Suspected Preterm Preeclampsia: A Stratified Analysis of the PARROT-2 Trial

BACKGROUND: PlGF (placental growth factor)-based testing reduces severe maternal adverse outcomes. Repeat PlGF-based testing is not associated with improved perinatal or maternal outcomes. This planned secondary analysis aimed to determine whether there is a subgroup of women who benefit from repeat testing. METHODS: Pregnant individuals with suspected preterm preeclampsia were randomized to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared with usual care where testing was concealed. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were stratified by trial group, by initial PlGF-based test result, and by PlGF-based test type (PlGF or sFlt-1 [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1]/PlGF ratio). RESULTS: A total of 1252 pregnant individuals were included. Abnormal initial PlGF-based test identified a more severe phenotype of preeclampsia, at increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Repeat testing was not significantly associated with clinical benefit in women with abnormal initial results. Of women with a normal initial result, 20% developed preeclampsia, with the majority at least 3 to 4 weeks after initial presentation. Repeat test results were more likely to change from normal to abnormal in symptomatic women (112/415; 27%) compared with asymptomatic women (163/890; 18%). A higher proportion of symptomatic women who changed from normal to abnormal were diagnosed with preeclampsia, compared with asymptomatic women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate evidence of the clinical benefit of repeating PlGF-based testing if the initial result is abnormal. Judicious use of repeat PlGF-based testing to stratify risk may be considered at least 2 weeks after a normal initial test result, particularly in women who have symptoms or signs of preeclampsia. REGISTRATION: URL: XXX; Unique identifier: ISRCTN85912420

Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a 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 women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79–0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08–1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Placental Growth Factor Testing to Assess Women With Suspected Preeclampsia:A Multicenter, Pragmatic, Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Hypertension affects 10% of pregnant women, and approximately 3% of singleton pregnancies are complicated by preeclampsia. Preeclampsia often presents ambiguously, and the risks for women with suspected preeclampsia are complex. Angiogenic factors, such as placental growth factor (PlGF), are associated with the pathophysiology of preeclampsia. Studies have shown that detection of low circulating maternal PlGF concentrations has a 96%sensitivity and 98%negative predictive value in diagnosing preeclampsia that required delivery within 14 days in women with suspected preeclampsia. However, the effectiveness of PlGF testing has not been examined in a real-world setting. Therefore, the researchers sought to determine whether circulating PlGF concentration, along with a clinical management algorithm, would lower the clinical time needed to diagnose women with suspected preeclampsia or whether this approach reduced adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. The researchers performed a multicenter, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial in 11 maternity units in the United Kingdom, each responsible for 3000 to 9000 deliveries per year. Inclusion criteria for the study were women 18 years and older presenting with suspected preeclampsia between 20 + 0 weeks and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation with a live, singleton fetus.Women identified at routine antenatal appointments or following acute clinical presentation with symptoms were included in the trial, whereas women with a documented diagnosis of preeclampsia at presentation were ineligible. Suspected preeclampsia 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). Primary outcome was time from presentation with suspected preeclampsia to documented preeclampsia for women in the trial who received that diagnosis. For the study period between June 13, 2016 and October 27, 2017, 1035women with suspected preeclampsia were enrolled in the trial; 1023 of these women met eligibility criteria. Of these, 576 women (56%) were assigned to the intervention group (testing revealed), and 447 women (44%) were assigned to receive their usual care with additional concealed testing. Three women in the first group were lost during follow-up, leaving 573 women in the revealed testing group; one woman in the concealed testing group withdrew consent, leaving 446 women in the concealed testing group. In the concealed testing group, the mean time to preeclampsia diagnosis was 4.1 days, whereas in the revealed testing group, it was 1.9 days. Severematernal adverse outcomes were reported in 24 (5%) of the 447 women in the concealed testing group and in 22 (4%) of the 573 women in the revealed testing group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.96; P = 0.043), whereas there was no evidence of difference in perinatal adverse outcomes (15% vs 14%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.45; CI, 0.73-2.90) or gestational age at delivery (36.6 vs 36.8 weeks; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.63-0.73). The researchers concluded that revealing PlGF test results substantially reduced the time to confirm a suspected preeclampsia diagnosis. In patients where PlGF testing was revealed, there was a lower incidence of maternal adverse outcomes, consistent with surveillance of these patients and as recommended in the management algorithm. The authors suggest that their data support PlGF testing in women with suspected preeclampsia as a diagnostic adjunct.</p