Is serum free estriol measurement essential in the management of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy?

Crocin exhibits an antihypertensive effect in a rat model of gestational hypertension and activates the Nrf-2/HO-1 signaling pathway

Gestational hypertension is a leading cause of both prenatal and maternal mortality and morbidity; however, there have been rather limited advances in the management of gestational hypertension in recent years. There has been evidence supporting the antihypertensive properties of crocin, but the specific mechanism is still unclear. N-Nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) was employed to establish a rat model with a preeclampsia-like phenotype, particularly gestational hypertension. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were conducted to determine the levels of placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase (sFlt-1); the levels of the circulating cytokines interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α; and oxidative stress factors. Quantitative RT-PCR assays were performed to assess the transcript levels of various cytokines in the placenta, and western blot assays were carried out to evaluate the protein levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and nuclear factor-erythroid 2-like 2 (Nrf-2). Treatment with crocin reduced the blood pressure of rats with gestational hypertension, which was accompanied by suppressed circulating levels of PlGF and sFlt-1. Crocin further alleviated the inflammatory signals and oxidative stress in the serum, as well as in placental tissues, in rats with L-NAME-induced hypertension. Crocin treatment also improved pregnancy outcomes in terms of fetal survival, fetal weight, and the fetal/placental weight ratio. Finally, in hypertension elicited by L-NAME, crocin stimulated the placental Nrf-2/HO-1 pathway. Crocin alleviated inflammatory and oxidative stress in placental tissues, thereby protecting against gestational hypertension, one of the major phenotypes of preeclampsia, and activated the Nrf-2/HO-1 pathway.

Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth affects 2.6 million pregnancies worldwide each year. Whilst the majority of cases occur in low- and middle-income countries, stillbirth remains an important clinical issue for high-income countries (HICs) - with both the UK and the USA reporting rates above the mean for HICs. In HICs, the most frequently reported association with stillbirth is placental dysfunction. Placental dysfunction may be evident clinically as fetal growth restriction (FGR) and small-for-dates infants. It can be caused by placental abruption or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and many other disorders and factorsPlacental abnormalities are noted in 11% to 65% of stillbirths. Identification of FGA is difficult in utero. Small-for-gestational age (SGA), as assessed after birth, is the most commonly used surrogate measure for this outcome. The degree of SGA is associated with the likelihood of FGR; 30% of infants with a birthweight < 10th centile are thought to be FGR, while 70% of infants with a birthweight < 3rd centile are thought to be FGR. Critically, SGA is the most significant antenatal risk factor for a stillborn infant. Correct identification of SGA infants is associated with a reduction in the perinatal mortality rate. However, currently used tests, such as measurement of symphysis-fundal height, have a low reported sensitivity and specificity for the identification of SGA infants.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound assessment of fetal growth by estimated fetal weight (EFW) and placental biomarkers alone and in any combination used after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the identification of placental dysfunction as evidenced by either stillbirth, or birth of a SGA infant. Secondary objectives were to investigate the effect of clinical and methodological factors on test performance.

SEARCH METHODS

We developed full search strategies with no language or date restrictions. The following sources were searched: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane (Wiley) CENTRAL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCO) with search strategies adapted for each database as required; ISRCTN Registry, UK Clinical Trials Gateway, WHO International Clinical Trials Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies; specialist abstract and conference proceeding resources (British Library's ZETOC and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index). Search last conducted in Ocober 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of pregnant women of any age with a gestation of at least 24 weeks if relevant outcomes of pregnancy (live birth/stillbirth; SGA infant) were assessed. Studies were included irrespective of whether pregnant women were deemed to be low or high risk for complications or were of mixed populations (low and high risk). Pregnancies complicated by fetal abnormalities and multi-fetal pregnancies were excluded as they have a higher risk of stillbirth from non-placental causes. With regard to biochemical tests, we included assays performed using any technique and at any threshold used to determine test positivity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the numbers of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative test results from each study. We assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 91 studies that evaluated seven tests - blood tests for human placental lactogen (hPL), oestriol, placental growth factor (PlGF) and uric acid, ultrasound EFW and placental grading and urinary oestriol - in a total of 175,426 pregnant women, in which 15,471 pregnancies ended in the birth of a small baby and 740 pregnancies which ended in stillbirth. The quality of included studies was variable with most domains at low risk of bias although 59% of studies were deemed to be of unclear risk of bias for the reference standard domain. Fifty-three per cent of studies were of high concern for applicability due to inclusion of only high- or low-risk women.Using all available data for SGA (86 studies; 159,490 pregnancies involving 15,471 SGA infants), there was evidence of a difference in accuracy (P < 0.0001) between the seven tests for detecting pregnancies that are SGA at birth. Ultrasound EFW was the most accurate test for detecting SGA at birth with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 21.3 (95% CI 13.1 to 34.6); hPL was the most accurate biochemical test with a DOR of 4.78 (95% CI 3.21 to 7.13). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.88 and median prevalence of 19%, EFW, hPL, oestriol, urinary oestriol, uric acid, PlGF and placental grading will miss 50 (95% CI 32 to 68), 116 (97 to 133), 124 (108 to 137), 127 (95 to 152), 139 (118 to 154), 144 (118 to 161), and 144 (122 to 161) SGA infants, respectively. For the detection of pregnancies ending in stillbirth (21 studies; 100,687 pregnancies involving 740 stillbirths), in an indirect comparison of the four biochemical tests, PlGF was the most accurate test with a DOR of 49.2 (95% CI 12.7 to 191). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.78 and median prevalence of 1.7%, PlGF, hPL, urinary oestriol and uric acid will miss 2 (95% CI 0 to 4), 4 (2 to 8), 6 (6 to 7) and 8 (3 to 13) stillbirths, respectively. No studies assessed the accuracy of ultrasound EFW for detection of pregnancy ending in stillbirth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone have insufficient accuracy to identify pregnancies ending in SGA or stillbirth. Studies combining U and placental biomarkers are needed to determine whether this approach improves diagnostic accuracy over the use of ultrasound estimation of fetal size or biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone. Many of the studies included in this review were carried out between 1974 and 2016. Studies of placental substances were mostly carried out before 1991 and after 2013; earlier studies may not reflect developments in test technology.

Use of biochemical tests of placental function for improving pregnancy outcome

BACKGROUND

The placenta has an essential role in determining the outcome of pregnancy. Consequently, biochemical measurement of placentally-derived factors has been suggested as a means to improve fetal and maternal outcome of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether clinicians' knowledge of the results of biochemical tests of placental function is associated with improvement in fetal or maternal outcome of pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the merits of the use of biochemical tests of placental function to improve pregnancy outcome.Studies were eligible if they compared women who had placental function tests and the results were available to their clinicians with women who either did not have the tests, or the tests were done but the results were not available to the clinicians. The placental function tests were any biochemical test of placental function carried out using the woman's maternal biofluid, either alone or in combination with other placental function test/s.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Authors of published trials were contacted for further information.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two quasi-randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. One trial was deemed to be at low risk of bias while the other two were at high risk of bias. Different biochemical analytes were measured - oestrogen was measured in one trial and the other two measured human placental lactogen (hPL). One trial did not contribute outcome data, therefore, the results of this review are based on two trials with 740 participants.There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of death of a baby (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.13, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.19, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a clear difference between women who had biochemical tests of placental function compared with standard antenatal care for the incidence of stillbirth (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.88, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or neonatal death (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.74, two trials, 740 participants, very low quality evidence)) although the directions of any potential effect were in opposing directions. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in elective delivery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14, two trials, 740 participants (low quality evidence)), caesarean section (one trial, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.52, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)), change in anxiety score (mean difference -2.40, 95% CI -4.78 to -0.02, one trial, 118 participants), admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.01, one trial, 118 participants), and preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation (RR 2.90, 95% CI 0.12 to 69.81, one trial, 118 participants). One trial (118 participants) reported that there were no cases of serious neonatal morbidity. Maternal death was not reported.A number of this review's secondary outcomes relating to the baby were not reported in the included studies, namely: umbilical artery pH < 7.0, neonatal intensive care for more than seven days, very preterm birth (< 32 weeks' gestation), need for ventilation, organ failure, fetal abnormality, neurodevelopment in childhood (cerebral palsy, neurodevelopmental delay). Similarly, a number of this review's maternal secondary outcomes were not reported in the included studies (admission to intensive care, high dependency unit admission, hospital admission for > seven days, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and women's perception of care).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of biochemical tests of placental function to reduce perinatal mortality or increase identification of small-for-gestational-age infants. However, we were only able to include data from two studies that measured oestrogens and hPL. The quality of the evidence was low or very low.Two of the trials were performed in the 1970s on women with a variety of antenatal complications and this evidence cannot be generalised to women at low-risk of complications or groups of women with specific pregnancy complications (e.g. fetal growth restriction). Furthermore, outcomes described in the 1970s may not reflect what would be expected at present. For example, neonatal mortality rates have fallen substantially, such that an infant delivered at 28 weeks would have a greater chance of survival were those studies repeated; this may affect the primary outcome of the meta-analysis.With data from just two studies (740 women), this review is underpowered to detect a difference in the incidence of death of a baby or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant as these have a background incidence of approximately 0.75% and 10% of pregnancies respectively. Similarly, this review is underpowered to detect differences between serious and/or rare adverse events such as severe neonatal morbidity. Two of the three included studies were quasi-randomised, with significant risk of bias from group allocation. Additionally, there may be performance bias as in one of the two studies contributing data, participants receiving standard care did not have venepuncture, so clinicians treating participants could identify which arm of the study they were in. Future studies should consider more robust randomisation methods and concealment of group allocation and should be adequately powered to detect differences in rare adverse events.The studies identified in this review examined two different analytes: oestrogens and hPL. There are many other placental products that could be employed as surrogates of placental function, including: placental growth factor (PlGF), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), plasma protein A (PAPP-A), placental protein 13 (PP-13), pregnancy-specific glycoproteins and progesterone metabolites and further studies should be encouraged to investigate these other placental products. Future randomised controlled trials should test analytes identified as having the best predictive reliability for placental dysfunction leading to small-for-gestational-age infants and perinatal mortality.

Biochemical tests of placental function for assessment in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Biochemical tests of placental or feto-placental function were widely used in the 1960s and 1970s in high-risk pregnancies to try to predict, and thus try to avoid, adverse fetal outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of performing biochemical tests of placental function in high-risk, low-risk, or unselected pregnancies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 May 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials (randomized or 'quasi-randomized') that compare the use of biochemical tests of placental function in pregnancy with non-use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by the review author.

MAIN RESULTS

A single eligible trial of poor quality was identified. It involved 622 women with high-risk pregnancies who had had plasma (o)estriol estimations. Women were allocated to have their (o)estriol results revealed or concealed on the basis of hospital record number (with attendant risk of selection bias). There were no obvious differences in perinatal mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.13) or planned delivery (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15) between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available trial data do not support the use of (o)estriol estimation in high-risk pregnancies. The single small trial available does not have the power to exclude a beneficial effect but this is probably of historical interest since biochemical testing has been superseded by biophysical testing in antepartum fetal assessment.

Biochemical tests of placental function for assessment in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Biochemical tests of placental or feto-placental function were widely used in the 1960s and 1970s in high-risk pregnancies to try to predict, and thus try to avoid, adverse fetal outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of performing biochemical tests of placental function in high-risk, low-risk, or unselected pregnancies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (February 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials (randomized or 'quasi-randomized') that compare the use of biochemical tests of placental function in pregnancy with non-use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by the reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

A single eligible trial of poor quality was identified. It involved 622 women with high-risk pregnancies who had had plasma (o)estriol estimations. Women were allocated to have their (o)estriol results revealed or concealed on the basis of hospital record number (with attendant risk of selection bias). There were no obvious differences in perinatal mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.13) or planned delivery (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15) between the two groups.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The available trial data do not support the use of (o)estriol estimation in high-risk pregnancies. The single small trial available does not have the power to exclude a beneficial effect but this is probably of historical interest since biochemical testing has been superseded by biophysical testing in antepartum fetal assessment.