Performance indices of AmnioQuick Duo+ versus placental α-microglobulin-1 tests for women with prolonged premature rupture of membranes

Comparison of urine protein-creatinine ratio and urine dipstick test for significant proteinuria in preeclamptic women

Background

Assessing for significant proteinuria in pregnancy (SPIP) stands as a key indicator for diagnosing preeclampsia. However, the initial method typically employed for this assessment, the urine dipstick test, often yields inaccurate results. While a 24-h urine collection is considered the most reliable test, its implementation can lead to delays in diagnosis, potentially affecting both maternal and fetal well-being. The urine protein-creatinine (P/Cr) ratio can be used as an alternative to 24-h urine protein analysis, but its diagnostic accuracy has remained uncertain. There is a need to compare the diagnostic accuracy of urine P/Cr ratio and dipstick urinalysis for SPIP, especially in resource-poor settings.

Objectives

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of urine P/Cr ratio and dipstick urinalysis in a spot urine specimen for the diagnosis of SPIP among women evaluated for preeclampsia using 24-h urine protein excretions as a gold standard.

Design

This is a comparative cross-sectional study.

Methods

The study involved 82 singleton pregnant women evaluated for preeclampsia from 20 weeks of gestation who underwent dipstick and P/Cr ratio tests in the same urine sample. Women at risk of preeclampsia were given a specimen container for the collection of urine samples on an outpatient basis. Participants were trained and told to collect the urine sample 24 h prior to their next antenatal appointment. However, those on admission and evaluated for preeclampsia had their 24-h urine collected in the hospital. The outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratio and accuracy for the two tests. Significant proteinuria was defined as a P/Cr ratio >0.27 or ⩾2+ of proteinuria on the dipstick test. Preeclampsia was confirmed in women with both high blood pressure and SPIP.

Results

The mean age of participants was 28.65 ± 5.76 years. Comparatively, the diagnostic accuracy (91.46% (95% CI = 83.29-96.59) vs 59.76% (95% CI = 48.34-70.44), p = 0.001), sensitivity (94.74% vs 70.00%, p = 0.021), specificity (84.00% vs 43.75%, p = 0.001), negative predictive value (87.50% vs 48.28%, p = 0.003) and positive predictive value (93.10% vs 66.04%, p = 0.001), respectively, were higher for the spot urine P/Cr ratio than dipstick test. In addition, the positive likelihood ratio and the negative likelihood ratio for spot urine P/Cr ratio versus dipstick test were (1.93 vs 1.24) and (0.07 vs 0.69), respectively.

Conclusion

The spot urine P/Cr has superior diagnostic accuracy in the determination of significant proteinuria in pregnant women being evaluated for preeclampsia than the widely used dipstick test. A more robust multicenter study is needed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of spot urine PCR with the standard 24-h urine protein in low-income settings.

Active versus expectant management for premature rupture of membranes at term: A randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects on feto-maternal outcomes of expectant versus active management for premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at term.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized (1:1) controlled study involving 86 pregnant-women who received either expectant management (n = 43) or active management with misoprostol (n = 43) for PROM at term. Primary outcome was route of delivery. Secondary outcomes were: PROM to presentation interval; latency period; PROM to delivery interval; recruitment to delivery interval; labour and delivery complications.

RESULTS

Baseline-characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference between active and expectant groups in mean PROM to presentation/admission, or PROM to delivery. However, mean latency period (11.1 ± 7.3 hours vs 8.8 ± 5.5 hours) and mean recruitment to delivery intervals after PROM (14.7 ± 5.2 hours vs 11.8 ± 5.0 hours) were significantly shorter for the active group compared with the expectant group. Although the rate of caesarean section was less in expectant management group (21%) compared with the active management group (30%), the difference was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences between groups in delivery or perinatal complications.

CONCLUSION

Active and expectant management for PROM at term gave comparable outcomes in terms of methods of delivery and complications. However, active management significantly shortened the latency period and induction to delivery intervals compared with expectant management.Trial-Registration: Pan-African-trial-registry-(PACTR)-approval-number PACTR202206797734088.

AACC Guidance Document on the Use of Point-of-Care Testing in Fertility and Reproduction

Background

The AACC Academy revised the reproductive testing section of the Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Evidence-Based Practice for Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) published in 2007.

Methods

A panel of Academy members with expertise in POCT and laboratory medicine was formed to develop guidance for the use of POCT in reproductive health, specifically ovulation, pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and high-risk deliveries. The committee was supplemented with clinicians having Emergency Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology training.

Results

Key recommendations include the following. First, urine luteinizing hormone (LH) tests are accurate and reliable predictors of ovulation. Studies have shown that the use of ovulation predicting kits may improve the likelihood of conception among healthy fertile women seeking pregnancy. Urinary LH point-of-care testing demonstrates a comparable performance among other ovulation monitoring methods for timing intrauterine insemination and confirming sufficient ovulation induction before oocyte retrieval during in vitro fertilization. Second, pregnancy POCT should be considered in clinical situations where rapid diagnosis of pregnancy is needed for treatment decisions, and laboratory analysis cannot meet the required turnaround time. Third, PROM testing using commercial kits alone is not recommended without clinical signs of rupture of membranes, such as leakage of amniotic fluid from the cervical opening. Finally, fetal scalp lactate is used more than fetal scalp pH for fetal acidosis due to higher success rate and low volume of sample required.

Conclusions

This revision of the AACC Academy POCT guidelines provides recommendations for best practice use of POCT in fertility and reproduction.

Comparison of the accuracy and reliability of the AmniSure, AMNIOQUICK, and AL-SENSE tests for early diagnosis of premature rupture of membranes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy and reliability of the AmniSure, AMNIOQUICK, and AL-SENSE tests with conventional tests to diagnose suspected premature rupture of membranes (PROM).

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of 60 pregnant women at 25-36 weeks of pregnancy with suspected PROM was conducted between January and April 2015. AmniSure (Qiagen Sciences LLC, Germantown, MD, USA), AMNIOQUICK (BIOSYNEX, Strasbourg, France), and AL-SENSE (Common Sense Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) tests were performed after conventional tests (ultrasonography, pooling, nitrazine, and fern tests) and women were followed-up for 7 days. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy, among others, were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

For women with a confirmed diagnosis of PROM, the sensitivity and specificity of conventional tests were 93.7% and 100.0%, respectively; diagnostic accuracy was 98.3%. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were all 100.0% for AmniSure. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for AMNIOQUICK were 75.0%, 97.7%, and 91.6%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 75.0%, 86.3%, 83.3%, respectively, for the AL-SENSE pad test.

CONCLUSION

The AmniSure test was most sensitive and specific for diagnosing PROM compared with the other tests and is reliable and usable.