First trimester screening for pre-eclampsia and targeted aspirin prophylaxis: a cost-effectiveness cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate cost-effectiveness of first trimester pre-eclampsia screening using the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm and targeted aspirin prophylaxis in comparison with standard care. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: London tertiary hospital. POPULATION: 5957 pregnancies screened for pre-eclampsia using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) method. METHODS: Differences in pregnancy outcomes between those who developed pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests. The FMF algorithm was applied retrospectively to the cohort. A decision analytic model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for pregnancies screened using NICE and those screened using the FMF algorithm. The decision point probabilities were calculated using the included cohort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental healthcare costs and QALY gained per pregnancy screened. RESULTS: Of 5957 pregnancies, 12.8% and 15.9% were screen-positive for development of pre-eclampsia using the NICE and FMF methods, respectively. Of those who were screen-positive by NICE recommendations, aspirin was not prescribed in 25%. Across the three groups, namely, pregnancies without pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia there was a statistically significant trend in rates of emergency caesarean (respectively 21%, 43% and 71.4%; P < 0.001), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (5.9%, 9.4%, 41%; P < 0.001) and length of stay in NICU. The FMF algorithm was associated with seven fewer cases of preterm pre-eclampsia, cost saving of £9.06 and QALY gain of 0.00006/pregnancy screened. CONCLUSIONS: Using a conservative approach, application of the FMF algorithm achieved clinical benefit and an economic cost saving.

Perinatal and 2-year neurodevelopmental outcome in late preterm fetal compromise: the TRUFFLE 2 randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following the detection of fetal growth restriction, there is no consensus about the criteria that should trigger delivery in the late preterm period. The consequences of inappropriate early or late delivery are potentially important yet practice varies widely around the world, with abnormal findings from fetal heart rate monitoring invariably leading to delivery. Indices derived from fetal cerebral Doppler examination may guide such decisions although there are few studies in this area. We propose a randomised, controlled trial to establish the optimum method of timing delivery between 32 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation. We hypothesise that delivery on evidence of cerebral blood flow redistribution reduces a composite of perinatal poor outcome, death and short-term hypoxia-related morbidity, with no worsening of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women with non-anomalous singleton pregnancies 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation in whom the estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference is <10th percentile or has decreased by 50 percentiles since 18-32 weeks will be included for observational data collection. Participants will be randomised if cerebral blood flow redistribution is identified, based on umbilical to middle cerebral artery pulsatility index ratio values. Computerised cardiotocography (cCTG) must show normal fetal heart rate short term variation (≥4.5 msec) and absence of decelerations at randomisation. Randomisation will be 1:1 to immediate delivery or delayed delivery (based on cCTG abnormalities or other worsening fetal condition). The primary outcome is poor condition at birth and/or fetal or neonatal death and/or major neonatal morbidity, the secondary non-inferiority outcome is 2-year infant general health and neurodevelopmental outcome based on the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from London-Riverside Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Regulatory Authority (HRA). Publication will be in line with NIHR Open Access policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Main sponsor: Imperial College London, Reference: 19QC5491. Funders: NIHR HTA, Reference: 127 976. Study coordination centre: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS with Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical & Life Sciences, Cardiff University. IRAS Project ID: 266 400. REC reference: 20/LO/0031. ISRCTN registry: 76 016 200.

Pharmacological considerations for the proper clinical use of aminoglycosides.

Aminoglycosides constitute one of the oldest classes of antimicrobials. Despite their toxicity, mainly nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity, aminoglycosides are valuable in current clinical practice, since they retain good activity against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Time-kill studies have shown a concentration-dependent and partially concentration-dependent bacterial killing against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, respectively. Pharmacodynamic data gathered over recent decades show that the administration of aminoglycosides by an extended-interval dosing scheme takes advantage of the maximum potential of these agents, with the goal of achieving an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 100 mg · h/L over 24 hours and a peak plasma drug concentration (C(max)) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of 8-10. Several clinical conditions that are common in seriously ill patients result in expansion of the extracellular space and can lead to a lower than desirable C(max) with the usual loading dose. Extended-interval dosing schemes allow adequate time to decrease bacterial adaptive resistance, a phenomenon characterized by slow concentration-independent killing. Adaptive resistance is minimized by the complete clearance of the drug before the subsequent dose, thus favouring the extended-interval dosing schemes. The efficacy of these schemes is also safeguarded by the observed post-antibiotic sub-MIC effect and post-antibiotic leukocyte enhancement, which inhibit bacterial regrowth when the serum aminoglycoside levels fall below the MIC of the pathogen. In everyday clinical practice, aminoglycosides are usually used empirically to treat severe sepsis and septic shock while awaiting the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing acknowledges the regimen-dependent nature of clinical breakpoints for aminoglycosides, i.e. of MIC values that classify bacterial isolates into sensitive or resistant, and bases its recommendations on extended-interval dosing. To a large extent, the lack of correlation between in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing and clinical outcome is derived from the fact that the available clinical breakpoints for aminoglycosides are set based on mean pharmacokinetic parameters obtained in healthy volunteers and not sick patients. The nephrotoxicity associated with once- versus multiple-daily administration of aminoglycosides has been assessed in numerous prospective randomized trials and by several meta-analyses. The once-daily dosing schedule provides a longer time of administration until the threshold for nephrotoxicity is met. Regarding ototoxicity, no dosing regimen appears to be less ototoxic than another. Inactivation of aminoglycosides inside the bacterial pathogens occurs by diverse modifying enzymes and by operation of multidrug efflux systems, making both of these potential targets for inhibition. In summary, despite their use for several decades, the ideal method of administration and the preferred dosing schemes of aminoglycosides for most of their therapeutic indications need further refinement. Individualized pharmacodynamic monitoring has the potential of minimizing the toxicity and the clinical failures of these agents in critically ill patients.