1
|
Relph S, Vieira MC, Copas A, Winsloe C, Coxon K, Alagna A, Briley A, Johnson M, Page L, Peebles D, Shennan A, Thilaganathan B, Marlow N, Lees C, Lawlor DA, Khalil A, Sandall J, Pasupathy D. Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial. BJOG 2023. [PMID: 36999234 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17453] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2023] [Indexed: 04/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0 weeks of gestation. METHODS Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0 weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Relph
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Matias C Vieira
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), School of Medical Sciences, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Andrew Copas
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chivon Winsloe
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Kirstie Coxon
- Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston and St George's University, London, UK
| | | | - Annette Briley
- Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Mark Johnson
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Louise Page
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, UK
| | - Donald Peebles
- UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Shennan
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Baskaran Thilaganathan
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Neil Marlow
- UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Christoph Lees
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Deborah A Lawlor
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Asma Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Jane Sandall
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Dharmintra Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Relph S, Vieira MC, Copas A, Alagna A, Page L, Winsloe C, Shennan A, Briley A, Johnson M, Lees C, Lawlor DA, Sandall J, Khalil A, Pasupathy D. Characteristics associated with antenatally unidentified small-for-gestational-age fetuses: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2023; 61:356-366. [PMID: 36206546 DOI: 10.1002/uog.26091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify the clinical characteristics and patterns of ultrasound use amongst pregnancies with an antenatally unidentified small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetus, compared with those in which SGA is identified, to understand how to design interventions that improve antenatal SGA identification. METHODS This was a prospective cohort study of singleton, non-anomalous SGA (birth weight < 10th centile) neonates born after 24 + 0 gestational weeks at 13 UK sites, recruited for the baseline period and control arm of the DESiGN trial. Pregnancy with antenatally unidentified SGA was defined if there was no scan or if the final scan showed estimated fetal weight (EFW) at the 10th centile or above. Identified SGA was defined if EFW was below the 10th centile at the last scan. Maternal and fetal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were studied for associations with unidentified SGA using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. Ultrasound parameters (gestational age at first growth scan, number and frequency of ultrasound scans) were described, stratified by presence of indication for serial ultrasound. Associations of unidentified SGA with absolute centile and percentage weight difference between the last scan and birth were also studied on unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, according to time between the last scan and birth. RESULTS Of the 15 784 SGA babies included, SGA was not identified antenatally in 78.7% of cases. Of pregnancies with unidentified SGA, 47.1% had no recorded growth scan. Amongst 9410 pregnancies with complete data on key maternal comorbidities and antenatal complications, the risk of unidentified SGA was lower for women with any indication for serial scans (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.56 (95% CI, 0.49-0.64)), for Asian compared with white women (aOR, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93)) and for those with non-cephalic presentation at birth (aOR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.73)). The risk of unidentified SGA was highest among women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25.0-29.9 kg/m2 (aOR, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.01-1.32)) and lowest in those with underweight BMI (aOR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.76)) compared to women with BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 . Compared to women with identified SGA, those with unidentified SGA had fetuses of higher SGA birth-weight centile (adjusted odds for unidentified SGA increased by 1.21 (95% CI, 1.18-1.23) per one-centile increase between the 0th and 10th centiles). Duration between the last scan and birth increased with advancing gestation in pregnancies with unidentified SGA. SGA babies born within a week of the last growth scan had a mean difference between EFW and birth-weight centiles of 19.5 (SD, 13.8) centiles for the unidentified-SGA group and 0.2 (SD, 3.3) centiles for the identified-SGA group (adjusted mean difference between groups, 19.0 (95% CI, 17.8-20.1) centiles). CONCLUSIONS Unidentified SGA was more common amongst women without an indication for serial ultrasound, and in those with cephalic presentation at birth, BMI of 25.0-29.9 kg/m2 and less severe SGA. Ultrasound EFW was overestimated in women with unidentified SGA. This demonstrates the importance of improving the accuracy of SGA screening strategies in low-risk populations and continuing performance of ultrasound scans for term pregnancies. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Relph
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - M C Vieira
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - A Copas
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - A Alagna
- The Guy's & St Thomas' Charity, London, UK
| | - L Page
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, UK
| | - C Winsloe
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - A Shennan
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - A Briley
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University and North Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia
| | - M Johnson
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - C Lees
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - D A Lawlor
- Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK
- MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Sandall
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - A Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Vascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - D Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vieira MC, Relph S, Muruet-Gutierrez W, Elstad M, Coker B, Moitt N, Delaney L, Winsloe C, Healey A, Coxon K, Alagna A, Briley A, Johnson M, Page LM, Peebles D, Shennan A, Thilaganathan B, Marlow N, McCowan L, Lees C, Lawlor DA, Khalil A, Sandall J, Copas A, Pasupathy D. Evaluation of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age: The DESiGN cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1004004. [PMID: 35727800 PMCID: PMC9212153 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. METHODS AND FINDINGS This was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24+1 weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster-summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4% to 10.7%; p = 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN67698474.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matias C. Vieira
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
| | - Sophie Relph
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Walter Muruet-Gutierrez
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Maria Elstad
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bolaji Coker
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie Moitt
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Louisa Delaney
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chivon Winsloe
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Healey
- Centre for Implementation Science and King’s Health Economics, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kirstie Coxon
- Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alessandro Alagna
- London Perinatal Morbidity and Mortality Working Group (NHS), London, United Kingdom
| | - Annette Briley
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Caring Futures Institute Flinders University and North Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Mark Johnson
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Louise M. Page
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, United Kingdom
| | - Donald Peebles
- UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Shennan
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Baskaran Thilaganathan
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neil Marlow
- UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lesley McCowan
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Christoph Lees
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Deborah A. Lawlor
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Asma Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jane Sandall
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Copas
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Dharmintra Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a major public health burden through associated fragility fractures. Bone mass, a composite of bone size and volumetric density, increases through early life and childhood to a peak in early adulthood. The peak bone mass attained is a strong predictor of future risk of osteoporosis. Evidence is accruing that environmental factors in utero and in early infancy may permanently modify the postnatal pattern of skeletal growth to peak and thus influence risk of osteoporosis in later life. This article describes the latest data in this exciting area of research, including novel epigenetic and translation work, which should help to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and give rise to potential public health interventions to reduce the burden of osteoporotic fracture in future generations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chivon Winsloe
- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Resource Centre, University of Southampton, School of Medicine, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|