scholarly journals Placental growth factor in assessment of women with suspected pre-eclampsia to reduce maternal morbidity: a stepped wedge cluster randomised control trial (PARROT Ireland)

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1857
Author(s):  
D Hayes-Ryan ◽  
A S Khashan ◽  
K Hemming ◽  
C Easter ◽  
D Devane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Maternal Morbidity ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Neonatal Morbidity ◽  
Randomised Control Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Cluster Randomised Control Trial

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of placental growth factor (PlGF) measurement to current clinical assessment of women with suspected pre-eclampsia before 37 weeks' gestation would reduce maternal morbidity without increasing neonatal morbidity.DesignStepped wedge cluster randomised control trial from 29 June 2017 to 26 April 2019.SettingNational multisite trial in seven maternity hospitals throughout the island of IrelandParticipantsWomen with a singleton pregnancy between 20+0 to 36+6 weeks’ gestation, with signs or symptoms suggestive of evolving pre-eclampsia. Of the 5718 women screened, 2583 were eligible and 2313 elected to participate.InterventionParticipants were assigned randomly to either usual care or to usual care plus the addition of point-of-care PlGF testing based on the randomisation status of their maternity hospital at the time point of enrolment.Main outcomes measuresCo-primary outcomes of composite maternal morbidity and composite neonatal morbidity. Analysis was on an individual participant level using mixed-effects Poisson regression adjusted for time effects (with robust standard errors) by intention-to-treat.ResultsOf the 4000 anticipated recruitment target, 2313 eligible participants (57%) were enrolled, of whom 2219 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. Of these, 1202 (54%) participants were assigned to the usual care group, and 1017 (46%) were assigned the intervention of additional point-of-care PlGF testing. The results demonstrate that the integration of point-of-care PlGF testing resulted in no evidence of a difference in maternal morbidity—457/1202 (38%) of women in the control group versus 330/1017 (32%) of women in the intervention group (adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.36), P=0.92)—or in neonatal morbidity—527/1202 (43%) of neonates in the control group versus 484/1017 (47%) in the intervention group (adjusted RR 1.03 (0.89 to 1.21), P=0.67).ConclusionsThis was a pragmatic evaluation of an interventional diagnostic test, conducted nationally across multiple sites. These results do not support the incorporation of PlGF testing into routine clinical investigations for women presenting with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia, but nor do they exclude its potential benefit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02881073.

Early rehabilitation after hospital admission for road trauma using an in-reach multidisciplinary team: a randomised controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1189-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Wu ◽  
Steven G Faux ◽  
John Estell ◽  
Stephen Wilson ◽  
Ian Harris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Psychological Status ◽  
Randomised Control Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Rehabilitation Team ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To investigate the impact of an in-reach rehabilitation team for patients admitted after road trauma. Design: Randomised control trial of usual care versus early involvement of in-reach rehabilitation team. Telephone follow-up was conducted by a blind assessor at three months for those with minor/moderate injuries and six months for serious/severe injuries. Setting: Four participating trauma services in New South Wales, Australia. Subjects: A total of 214 patients admitted during 2012-2015 with a length of stay of at least five days. Intervention: Provision of rehabilitation services in parallel with ward based therapy using an in-reach team for the intervention group. The control group could still access the ward based therapy (usual care). Main measures: The primary outcome was acute length of stay. Secondary outcomes included percentage requiring inpatient rehabilitation, function (Functional Independence Measure and Timed Up and Go Test), psychological status (Depression Anxiety and Stress Score 21), pain (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire) and quality of life (Short Form-12 v2). Results: Median length of stay in acute care was 13 days (IQR 8-21). The intervention group, compared to the control group, received more physiotherapy and occupational therapy sessions (median number of sessions 16.0 versus 11.5, P=0.003). However, acute length of stay did not differ between the intervention and control groups (median 15 vs 12 days, P=0.37). There were no significant differences observed in the secondary outcomes at hospital discharge and follow-up. Conclusion: No additional benefit was found from the routine use of acute rehabilitation teams for trauma patients over and above usual care.

scholarly journals Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated OA care model: Secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuva Moseng ◽  
Hanne Dagfinrud ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results: 284 intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers.

scholarly journals Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated OA care model: Secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuva Moseng ◽  
Hanne Dagfinrud ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results: 284 intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers.

scholarly journals Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated OA care model: Secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuva Moseng ◽  
Hanne Dagfinrud ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results: 284 intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers.

scholarly journals OP0198-HPR A STRUCTURED MODEL FOR OA CARE IN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE IS A COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO USUAL CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH HIP AND KNEE OA

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
N. Østerås ◽  
E. Aas ◽  
T. Moseng ◽  
L. Van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
K. Dziedzic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Mobile Health to Improve Adherence and Patient Experience in Heart Transplantation Recipients: The mHeart Trial

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Mar Gomis-Pastor ◽  
Sonia Mirabet Perez ◽  
Eulalia Roig Minguell ◽  
Vicenç Brossa Loidi ◽  
Laura Lopez Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Adherence Score

Non-adherence after heart transplantation (HTx) is a significant problem. The main objective of this study was to evaluate if a mHealth strategy is more effective than standard care in improving adherence and patients’ experience in heart transplant recipients. Methods: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adult recipients >1.5 years post-HTx. Participants were randomized to standard care (control group) or to the mHeart Strategy (intervention group). For patients randomized to the mHeart strategy, multifaceted theory-based interventions were provided during the study period to optimize therapy management using the mHeart mobile application. Patient experience regarding their medication regimens were evaluated in a face-to-face interview. Medication adherence was assessed by performing self-reported questionnaires. A composite adherence score that included the SMAQ questionnaire, the coefficient of variation of drug levels and missing visits was also reported. Results: A total of 134 HTx recipients were randomized (intervention N = 71; control N = 63). Mean follow-up was 1.6 (SD 0.6) years. Improvement in adherence from baseline was significantly higher in the intervention group versus the control group according to the SMAQ questionnaire (85% vs. 46%, OR = 6.7 (2.9; 15.8), p-value < 0.001) and the composite score (51% vs. 23%, OR = 0.3 (0.1; 0.6), p-value = 0.001). Patients’ experiences with their drug therapy including knowledge of their medication timing intakes (p-value = 0.019) and the drug indications or uses that they remembered (p-value = 0.003) significantly improved in the intervention versus the control group. Conclusions: In our study, the mHealth-based strategy significantly improved adherence and patient beliefs regarding their medication regimens among the HTx population. The mHeart mobile application was used as a feasible tool for providing long-term, tailor-made interventions to HTx recipients to improve the goals assessed.

scholarly journals Perioperative Gabapentin Does Not Reduce Postoperative Delirium in Older Surgical Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Postoperative Delirium ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Opioid Use

Abstract Background Postoperative pain and opioid use are associated with postoperative delirium. We designed a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, double-blinded trial to determine whether perioperative administration of gabapentin reduced postoperative delirium after noncardiac surgery. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (N = 347) or gabapentin 900 mg (N = 350) administered preoperatively and for the first 3 postoperative days. The primary outcome was postoperative delirium as measured by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, opioid use, and length of hospital stay. Results Data for 697 patients were included, with a mean ± SD age of 72 ± 6 yr. The overall incidence of postoperative delirium in any of the first 3 days was 22.4% (24.0% in the gabapentin and 20.8% in the placebo groups; the difference was 3.20%; 95% CI, 3.22% to 9.72%; P = 0.30). The incidence of delirium did not differ between the two groups when stratified by surgery type, anesthesia type, or preoperative risk status. Gabapentin was shown to be opioid sparing, with lower doses for the intervention group versus the control group. For example, the morphine equivalents for the gabapentin-treated group, median 6.7 mg (25th, 75th quartiles: 1.3, 20.0 mg), versus control group, median 6.7 mg (25th, 75th quartiles: 2.7, 24.8 mg), differed on the first postoperative day (P = 0.04). Conclusions Although postoperative opioid use was reduced, perioperative administration of gabapentin did not result in a reduction of postoperative delirium or hospital length of stay.

Impact of a 12-month web and smartphone-based intervention initiated during spa therapy to improve long-term physical activity of patients with chronic diseases: randomized controlled trial. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florie FILLOL ◽  
Ludivine PARIS ◽  
Sébastien PASCAL ◽  
Aurélien MULLIEZ ◽  
Christian-François ROQUES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Waist Circumference ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Spa Therapy

BACKGROUND Lack of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviors are leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCD). Web-based interventions are effective in increasing PA in older adults and in NCD patients. In many countries a course of spa therapy is commonly prescribed to NCD patients and represents an ideal context to initiating lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVE The main objective of this study was to evaluate in NCD patients the effectiveness of an intervention combining an individual face-to-face coaching during spa therapy and, when returning home, a web- and smartphone-based PA program including a connected wrist pedometer and a connected weighing scale, on the achievement of physical activity guidelines (PAG) 12 months after the end of spa therapy. METHODS This was a 12-month, prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Patients were enrolled during spa therapy and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control group who received usual advices about PA. From the end of spa therapy, PA, weight, waist circumference, and quality of life of the participants in both groups, were assessed by phone every 2 months. Primary outcome was meeting PAG (PA≥600 METs) at 12 months after the end of spa therapy. Secondary outcomes were: meeting current PAG at 6 months of follow-up; sedentary time, weight and waist circumference, PA and quality of life, at 6 and 12 months. Objective use data of the web-and smartphone-based PA program were collected. Analytic methods include intention-to-treat and constrained longitudinal data analyses. RESULTS The study sample was 228 patients (female : 77.2% (176/228), mean age: 62.4 years (SD 6.7), retired: 53.9% (123/228), mean BMI = 28.2 kg.m-2 (SD 4.2)). No group differences were found for any baseline variable. At 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving PAG was significantly higher in intervention group versus control group (81% vs 67% respectively, OR = 2.34 (95% CI 1.02- 5.38; P=.045). No difference between intervention and control group was found neither in achieving PAG at 6 months nor for sedentary time, weight and waist circumference, at 6 and 12 months. Regarding quality of life, the physical component subscale score was significantly higher at 12 months in intervention group versus control group (mean difference: 4.1 (95% CI 1.9-6.3; P<.001). The mean duration use of the program was 7.1 months (SD 4.5). Attrition rate during the first 2 months of the program was 20.4% (23/113) whereas 39.8% (45/113) of the participants used the program for at least 10 months. CONCLUSIONS The results showed significantly more participants meeting PAG at one year in the intervention group compared to controls. A course of spa therapy offers the ideal time and setting to implement education in PA. Digital coaching seems to be more efficient than usual coaching for increasing the level of PA and decreasing sedentariness on the long term. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02694796; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02694796.

INOVASIA Study: A Randomized Open Controlled Trial to Evaluate Pravastatin to Prevent Preeclampsia and its Effects on sFlt1/PLGF Levels

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ilham Aldika Akbar ◽  
Angelina Yosediputra ◽  
Raditya Eri Pratama ◽  
Nur Lailatul Fadhilah ◽  
Sulistyowati Sulistyowati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Perinatal Outcomes ◽  
Neonatal Morbidity ◽  
Clinical Risk Factor ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Deterioration ◽  
Plgf Ratio

Objectives To evaluate the effect of pravastatin to prevent preeclampsia (PE) in pregnant women at a high risk of developing preeclampsia and the maternal and perinatal outcomes and the sFlt1/PLGF ratio. Study Design This is an open labelled RCT part of INOVASIA trial. Pregnant women at a high risk of developing PE were recruited and randomized into an intervention group (40) and a control group (40). The inclusion criteria consisted of pregnant women with positive clinical risk factor and abnormal uterine artery doppler examination at 10-20 weeks gestational age. The control group received low dose aspirin (80 mg/day) and calcium (1 g/day), while the intervention group received additional pravastatin (20 mg twice daily) starting from 14-20 weeks gestation until delivery. Research blood samples were collected before the first dose of pravastatin and before delivery. The main outcome was the rate of maternal preeclampsia, maternal-perinatal outcomes, and sFlt-1, PLGF, sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and sEng levels. Results The rate of preeclampsia was (non-significantly) lower in the pravastatin group compared with the control group (17.5% vs 35%). The pravastatin group also had a (non-significant) lower rate of severe preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome, acute kidney injury and severe hypertension. The rate of (iatrogenic) preterm delivery was significantly (p=0.048) lower in the pravastatin group (n=4) compared with the controls (n=12). Neonates in the pravastatin group had significantly higher birthweights (2931 + 537 vs 2625 + 872 g; p=0.006), lower Apgar scores < 7 (2.5 vs 27.5%, p=0.002), composite neonatal morbidity (0 vs 20%, p=0.005) and NICU admission rates (0 vs 15%, p=0.026). All biomarkers show a significant deterioration in the control group compared with non significant changes in the pravastatin group. Conclusions Pravastatin holds promise in the secondary prevention of preeclampsia and placenta-mediated adverse perinatal outcomes by improving the angiogenic imbalance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document