Predicting seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy: Development and external validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Seizures are the main cause of maternal death in women with epilepsy, but there are no tools for predicting seizures in pregnancy. We set out to develop and validate a prognostic model, using information collected during the antenatal booking visit, to predict seizure risk at any time in pregnancy and until 6 weeks postpartum in women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used datasets of a prospective cohort study (EMPiRE) of 527 pregnant women with epilepsy on medication recruited from 50 hospitals in the UK (4 November 2011-17 August 2014). The model development cohort comprised 399 women whose antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted based on clinical features only; the validation cohort comprised 128 women whose drug dose adjustments were informed by serum drug levels. The outcome was epileptic (non-eclamptic) seizure captured using diary records. We fitted the model using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression, and reported the performance using C-statistic (scale 0-1, values > 0.5 show discrimination) and calibration slope (scale 0-1, values near 1 show accuracy) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We determined the net benefit (a weighted sum of true positive and false positive classifications) of using the model, with various probability thresholds, to aid clinicians in making individualised decisions regarding, for example, referral to tertiary care, frequency and intensity of monitoring, and changes in antiepileptic medication. Seizures occurred in 183 women (46%, 183/399) in the model development cohort and in 57 women (45%, 57/128) in the validation cohort. The model included age at first seizure, baseline seizure classification, history of mental health disorder or learning difficulty, occurrence of tonic-clonic and non-tonic-clonic seizures in the 3 months before pregnancy, previous admission to hospital for seizures during pregnancy, and baseline dose of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. The C-statistic was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75, 0.84). On external validation, the model showed good performance (C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.85; calibration slope 0.93, 95% CI 0.44, 1.41) but with imprecise estimates. The EMPiRE model showed the highest net proportional benefit for predicted probability thresholds between 12% and 99%. Limitations of this study include the varied gestational ages of women at recruitment, retrospective patient recall of seizure history, potential variations in seizure classification, the small number of events in the validation cohort, and the clinical utility restricted to decision-making thresholds above 12%. The model findings may not be generalisable to low- and middle-income countries, or when information on all predictors is not available. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPiRE model showed good performance in predicting the risk of seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy who are prescribed antiepileptic drugs. Integration of the tool within the antenatal booking visit, deployed as a simple nomogram, can help to optimise care in women with epilepsy.

Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy: examining feasibility in a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Raised blood pressure (BP) affects approximately 10% of pregnancies worldwide, and a high proportion of affected women develop pre-eclampsia. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy in women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. METHODS: This prospective cohort study of self-monitoring BP in pregnancy was carried out in two hospital trusts in Birmingham and Oxford and thirteen primary care practices in Oxfordshire. Eligible women were those defined by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines as at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. A total of 201 participants were recruited between 12 and 16 weeks of pregnancy and were asked to take two BP readings twice daily three times a week through their pregnancy. Primary outcomes were recruitment, retention and persistence of self-monitoring. Study recruitment and retention were analysed with descriptive statistics. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the persistence of self-monitoring and the performance of self-monitoring in the early detection of gestational hypertension, compared to clinic BP monitoring. Secondary outcomes were the mean clinic and self-monitored BP readings and the performance of self-monitoring in the detection of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia compared to clinic BP. RESULTS: Of 201 women recruited, 161 (80%) remained in the study at 36 weeks or to the end of their pregnancy, 162 (81%) provided any home readings suitable for analysis, 148 (74%) continued to self-monitor at 20 weeks and 107 (66%) at 36 weeks. Self-monitored readings were similar in value to contemporaneous matched clinic readings for both systolic and diastolic BP. Of the 23 who developed gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia and self-monitored, 9 (39%) had a raised home BP prior to a raised clinic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy is feasible and has potential to be useful in the early detection of gestational hypertensive disorders but maintaining self-monitoring throughout pregnancy requires support and probably enhanced training.

Variation in the reporting of outcomes among pregnant women with epilepsy: a systematic review.

Studies on pregnant women with epilepsy should evaluate both neurological and pregnancy outcomes. We undertook a systematic review of the literature of studies on pregnant women with epilepsy to collate the outcomes reported, and the quality of outcomes report in these studies. We searched major electronic databases (from 1999 until January 2015). Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study design, the risk of bias of the studies, journal impact factor and the quality of reported outcomes. We assessed the quality outcomes report using a six items standardised tool (score range 0-6). There were 70 different outcomes reported in 232 studies (maternal neurological (13/70, 19%), fetal and neonatal (28/70, 40%), and obstetric outcomes (29/70, 41%)). Most studies reported on major congenital fetal abnormalities (103/232, 44%), followed by live birth (60/232, 26%). Quality of the reported outcomes was poor (mean 1.54, SD 1.36). It was associated with journal impact factor (p=0.007), but not with study design (p=0.60), or risk of bias (p=0.17). The outcomes reported in studies on pregnant women with epilepsy varied widely, and the quality of the outcomes report was poor. There is a need to identify a set of core outcome to harmonise reporting in future clinical studies.

Rotational vaginal delivery with Kielland's forceps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of Kielland's forceps has declined significantly in the last three decades. There is a lack of quality evidence on potential benefits and harms associated with using these forceps. We have performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of using Kielland's forceps. RECENT FINDINGS: We have searched electronic databases for all clinical studies reporting primary data on using Kielland's forceps and assessed their risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We have pooled the event rate of adverse outcomes reported following the use of Kielland's forceps including a direct comparison to rotational ventouse. In total we included 23 studies. Direct comparison meta-analysis revealed higher failure rate with rotational ventouse compared with Kielland's. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse maternal outcomes between the two groups. There was higher risk of neonatal trauma in the ventouse group, but no significant difference in other neonatal outcomes. SUMMARY: Kielland's forceps have a high success rate with relatively low adverse outcomes despite their use being controversial. In comparison to rotational ventouse, Kielland's forceps have higher efficacy with less risk of neonatal trauma.

Effects of monitoring strategies on seizures in pregnant women on lamotrigine: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pregnant women with epilepsy have a significantly increased risk of mortality and morbidity compared to non-pregnant women. At least one in 250 pregnancies is exposed to anti-epileptic drugs (AED). Seizure deterioration occurs in up to a third of pregnant women. AED levels fall in most pregnant women, although it is uncertain that this is responsible for seizure deterioration rather than a hormonal effect. Current practice of AED monitoring is either therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) or clinical features monitoring (CFM) to adjust the AED dose. We have systematically reviewed the effectiveness of the two monitoring regimens for AEDs, especially lamotrigine, the most commonly used AED in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2012), EMBASE (1980-2012) and Cochrane, for relevant citations on the effectiveness of different monitoring strategies on seizure deterioration in pregnant women with epilepsy on lamotrigine. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. We calculated the rates of deterioration in seizures with the two strategies and pooled the estimates with random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six observational studies (n=132) evaluated the effectiveness of the two monitoring strategies on pregnant women with epilepsy on lamotrigine. There were no randomised controlled trials. The rate of seizure deterioration was 0.30 (95% CI 0.21-0.41) in women monitored by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) compared to 0.73 (95% CI 0.56-0.86) in those receiving clinical feature monitoring (CFM) alone. CONCLUSION: Evidence based on observational data suggests that monitoring of AED levels in pregnancy reduces seizure deterioration, although the included studies have numerous sources of bias. There is paucity of evidence to make firm recommendations on optimal monitoring of AED drugs in pregnancy. Further research is needed to advise on the best clinical practice in managing AED in pregnancy.