Levothyroxine in euthyroid thyroid peroxidase antibody positive women with recurrent pregnancy loss (T4LIFE trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Women positive for thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPO-Ab) have a higher risk of recurrent pregnancy loss. Evidence on whether levothyroxine treatment improves pregnancy outcomes in women who are TPO-Ab positive women with recurrent pregnancy loss is scarce. The aim of this study was to determine if levothyroxine increases live birth rates in women who were TPO-Ab positive with recurrent pregnancy loss and normal thyroid function. METHODS: The T4LIFE trial was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done in 13 secondary and tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands, one tertiary hospital in Belgium, and one tertiary hospital in Denmark. Women (18-42 years) who were TPO-Ab positive, had two or more pregnancy losses, and had a thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentration within the institutional reference range were eligible for inclusion. Women were excluded if they had antiphospholipid syndrome (lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin IgG or IgM antibodies, or ß2-glycoprotein-I IgG or IgM antibodies), other autoimmune diseases, thyroid disease, previous enrolment in this trial, or contraindications for levothyroxine use. Before conception, women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either levothyroxine or placebo orally once daily. The daily dose of levothyroxine was based on preconception TSH concentration and ranged from 0·5-1·0 µg/kg bodyweight. Levothyroxine or placebo was continued until the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome was live birth, defined as the birth of a living child beyond 24 weeks of gestation measured in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered within the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3364 and with EudraCT, 2011-001820-39. RESULTS: Between Jan 1, 2013, and Sept 19, 2019, 187 women were included in the study: 94 (50%) were assigned to the levothyroxine group and 93 (50%) were assigned to the placebo group. The trial was prematurely stopped when 187 (78%) of the 240 predefined patients had been included because of slow recruitment. 47 (50%) women in the levothyroxine group and 45 (48%) women in the placebo group had live births (risk ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·77 to 1·38]; absolute risk difference 1·6% [95% CI -12·7 to 15·9]). Seven (7%) women in the levothyroxine group and seven (8%) in the placebo group reported adverse events, none of them were directly related to the study procedure. INTERPRETATION: Compared with placebo, levothyroxine treatment did not result in higher live birth rates in euthyroid women with recurrent pregnancy loss who were positive for TPO-Ab. On the basis of our findings, we do not advise routine use of levothyroxine in women who are TPO-Ab positive with recurrent pregnancy loss and normal thyroid function. FUNDING: Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, Dutch Patient Organization of Thyroid Disorders, the Jan Dekkerstichting and Dr Ludgardine Bouwmanstichting, and a personal donation through the Dutch Patient Organization of Thyroid Disorders.

Evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour (the APRIL study): A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. The recurrence rate of spontaneous preterm birth is high, and additional preventive measures are required. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of low-dose aspirin compared to placebo in the prevention of preterm birth in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a parallel multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (the APRIL study). The study was performed in 8 tertiary and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. We included women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth of a singleton between 22 and 37 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to aspirin 80 mg daily or placebo initiated between 8 and 16 weeks of gestation and continued until 36 weeks or delivery. Randomisation was computer generated, with allocation concealment by using sequentially numbered medication containers. Participants, their healthcare providers, and researchers were blinded for treatment allocation. The primary outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neonatal outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular leukomalacia > grade 1, intraventricular hemorrhage > grade 2, necrotising enterocolitis > stage 1, retinopathy of prematurity, culture proven sepsis, or perinatal death). Analyses were performed by intention to treat. From May 31, 2016 to June 13, 2019, 406 women were randomised to aspirin (n = 204) or placebo (n = 202). A total of 387 women (81.1% of white ethnic origin, mean age 32.5 ± SD 3.8) were included in the final analysis: 194 women were allocated to aspirin and 193 to placebo. Preterm birth <37 weeks occurred in 41 (21.2%) women in the aspirin group and 49 (25.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.20, p = 0.32). In women with ≥80% medication adherence, preterm birth occurred in 24 (19.2%) versus 30 (24.8%) women (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, p = 0.29). The rate of the composite of poor neonatal outcome was 4.6% (n = 9) versus 2.6% (n = 5) (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.25, p = 0.29). Among all randomised women, serious adverse events occurred in 11 out of 204 (5.4%) women allocated to aspirin and 11 out of 202 (5.4%) women allocated to placebo. None of these serious adverse events was considered to be associated with treatment allocation. The main study limitation is the underpowered sample size due to the lower than expected preterm birth rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that low-dose aspirin did not significantly reduce the preterm birth rate in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. However, a modest reduction of preterm birth with aspirin cannot be ruled out. Further research is required to determine a possible beneficial effect of low-dose aspirin for women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NL5553, NTR5675) https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5553.

Low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour - the APRIL study: a multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) is a major problem in obstetrics and affects an estimated 15 million pregnancies worldwide annually. A history of previous preterm birth is the strongest risk factor for preterm birth, and recurrent spontaneous preterm birth affects more than 2.5 million pregnancies each year. A recent meta-analysis showed possible benefits of the use of low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. We will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of low dose aspirin in comparison with placebo in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth in a singleton pregnancy (22-37 weeks of gestation) will be asked to participate in a multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Women will be randomized to low dose aspirin (80 mg once daily) or placebo, initiated from 8 to 16 weeks up to maximal 36 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure will be preterm birth, defined as birth at a gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be a composite of adverse neonatal outcome and maternal outcomes, including subgroups of prematurity, as well as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and costs from a healthcare perspective. Preterm birth will be analyzed as a group, as well as separately for spontaneous or indicated onset. Analysis will be performed by intention to treat. In total, 406 pregnant women have to be randomized to show a reduction of 35% in preterm birth from 36 to 23%. If aspirin is effective in preventing preterm birth, we expect that there will be cost savings, because of the low costs of aspirin. To evaluate this, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing preventive treatment with aspirin with placebo. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether or not low dose aspirin is (cost-) effective in reducing recurrence of spontaneous preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number of the Dutch Trial Register: NTR 5675 . EudraCT-registration number: 2015-003220-31.

Randomized Trial of a Lifestyle Program in Obese Infertile Women.

BACKGROUND: Small lifestyle-intervention studies suggest that modest weight loss increases the chance of conception and may improve perinatal outcomes, but large randomized, controlled trials are lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned infertile women with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 29 or higher to a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding treatment for infertility or to prompt treatment for infertility. The primary outcome was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. RESULTS: We assigned women who did not conceive naturally to one of two treatment strategies: 290 women were assigned to a 6-month lifestyle-intervention program preceding 18 months of infertility treatment (intervention group) and 287 were assigned to prompt infertility treatment for 24 months (control group). A total of 3 women withdrew consent, so 289 women in the intervention group and 285 women in the control group were included in the analysis. The discontinuation rate in the intervention group was 21.8%. In intention-to-treat analyses, the mean weight loss was 4.4 kg in the intervention group and 1.1 kg in the control group (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 27.1% of the women in the intervention group and 35.2% of those in the control group (rate ratio in the intervention group, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In obese infertile women, a lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment, as compared with prompt infertility treatment, did not result in higher rates of a vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1530.).

Immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to guide the management of women with hypertensive disorders in late preterm pregnancy. We investigated the effect of immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring on maternal and neonatal outcomes in such women. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial, in seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation were randomly allocated to either induction of labour or caesarean section within 24 h (immediate delivery) or a strategy aimed at prolonging pregnancy until 37 weeks of gestation (expectant monitoring). The primary outcomes were a composite of adverse maternal outcomes (thromboembolic disease, pulmonary oedema, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, placental abruption, or maternal death), and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, both analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1792). FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 897 women were invited to participate, of whom 703 were enrolled and randomly assigned to immediate delivery (n=352) or expectant monitoring (n=351). The composite adverse maternal outcome occurred in four (1·1%) of 352 women allocated to immediate delivery versus 11 (3·1%) of 351 women allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk [RR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·12-1·11; p=0·069). Respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 20 (5·7%) of 352 neonates in the immediate delivery group versus six (1·7%) of 351 neonates in the expectant monitoring group (RR 3·3, 95% CI 1·4-8·2; p=0·005). No maternal or perinatal deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: For women with non-severe hypertensive disorders at 34-37 weeks of gestation, immediate delivery might reduce the already small risk of adverse maternal outcomes. However, it significantly increases the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, therefore, routine immediate delivery does not seem justified and a strategy of expectant monitoring until the clinical situation deteriorates can be considered. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Preventing Preterm Birth with Progesterone in Women with a Short Cervical Length from a Low-Risk Population: A Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone in reducing adverse neonatal outcome due to preterm birth (PTB) in low-risk pregnant women with a short cervical length (CL). STUDY DESIGN: Women with a singleton pregnancy without a history of PTB underwent CL measurement at 18 to 22 weeks. Women with a CL ≤ 30 mm received vaginal progesterone or placebo. Primary outcome was adverse neonatal outcome, defined as a composite of respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intracerebral hemorrhage > grade II, necrotizing enterocolitis > stage 1, proven sepsis, or death before discharge. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery, PTB before 32, 34, and 37 weeks of gestation. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2013, 20,234 women were screened. A CL of 30 mm or less was seen in 375 women (1.8%). In 151 women, a CL ≤ 30 mm was confirmed with a second measurement and 80 of these women agreed to participate in the trial. We randomly allocated 41 women to progesterone and 39 to placebo. Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in two (5.0%) women in the progesterone and in four (11%) women in the control group (relative risk [RR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-2.4). The use of progesterone resulted in a nonsignificant reduction of PTB < 32 weeks (2.0 vs. 8.0%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.04-3.0) and < 34 weeks (7.0 vs. 10%; RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.18-3.1) but not on PTB < 37 weeks (15 vs. 13%; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.39-3.5). CONCLUSION: In women with a short cervix, who are otherwise low risk, we could not show a significant benefit of progesterone in reducing adverse neonatal outcome and PTB.

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (PPROMEXIL trial).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). DESIGN: Economic analysis based on a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Obstetric departments of eight academic and 52 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women with PPROM near term who were not in labor 24 h after PPROM. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was done from a health care provider perspective, using a bottom-up approach to estimate resource utilization, valued with unit-costs reflecting actual costs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary health outcome was the incidence of neonatal sepsis. Direct medical costs were estimated from start of randomization to hospital discharge of mother and child. RESULTS: Induction of labor did not significantly reduce the probability of neonatal sepsis [2.6% vs. 4.1%, relative risk 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.6)]. Mean costs per woman were €8094 for induction and €7340 for expectant management (difference €754; 95% confidence interval -335 to 1802). This difference predominantly originated in the postpartum period, where the mean costs were €5669 for induction vs. €4801 for expectant management. Delivery costs were higher in women allocated to induction than in women allocated to expectant management (€1777 vs. €1153 per woman). Antepartum costs in the expectant management group were higher because of longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In women with pregnancies complicated by PPROM near term, induction of labor does not reduce neonatal sepsis, whereas costs associated with this strategy are probably higher.

Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: The evidence for the management of near term prelabor rupture of membranes is poor. From January 2007 until September 2009, we performed the PPROM Expectant Management versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trial. In this trial, we showed that in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), the incidence of neonatal sepsis was low, and the induction of labor (IoL) did not reduce this risk. Because the PPROMEXIL trial was underpowered and because of a lower-than-expected incidence of neonatal sepsis, we performed a second trial (PPROMEXIL-2), aiming to randomize 200 patients to improve the evidence in near-term PPROM. STUDY DESIGN: In a nationwide multicenter study, nonlaboring women with PPROM between 34 and 37 weeks' gestational age were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to IoL or expectant management (EM). The primary outcome measure was neonatal sepsis. RESULTS: From December 2009 until January 2011, we randomized 100 women to IoL and 95 to EM. Neonatal sepsis was seen in 3 neonates (3.0%) in the IoL-group versus 4 neonates (4.1%) in the EM group (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-3.2). One of the sepsis cases in the IoL group resulted in neonatal death because of asphyxia. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk of neonatal sepsis after PPROM near term is low. Induction of labor does not reduce this risk.

Ischemia modified albumin in normal pregnancy and preeclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: Ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) has emerged as a new biomarker of myocardial ischemia. Currently, no information is available on maternal IMA levels during normal and complicated pregnancy. Preeclampsia is associated with ischemia and increased formation of free radicals in the placenta. We therefore hypothesized that production of IMA may occur in women with preeclampsia. METHODS: Serum IMA and albumin concentrations were assessed in 12 patients with preeclampsia, 12 normal pregnant controls, and 12 nonpregnant controls. IMA levels were compared between groups and corrected for albumin by multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean IMA levels were elevated in normal pregnant controls (107.3 U/mL; 95% CI, 102.5 to 112.01), compared with nonpregnant controls (94.5 U/mL; CI, 89.4 to 99.6; p = 0.015). In patients with preeclampsia, IMA levels were similar to those in normal pregnant controls (109.7 U/mL; CI, 102.2 to 117.2; p = 0.65). Also, no difference in IMA levels was observed between women with preeclampsia who delivered small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants (99.0 U/mL; CI, 87.9 to 110.1; p = 0.13) and women with preeclampsia but without SGA. CONCLUSION: Serum IMA, which has been advocated as a clinical marker of cardiac ischemia, appears to be elevated during normal pregnancy. We found no significant relationship between IMA levels and preeclampsia, in women with or without SGA infants.

Validation and use of the Finometer for blood pressure measurement in normal, hypertensive and pre-eclamptic pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Although a large variety of automated blood pressure devices are available, only some have been validated for use in clinical practice. The British Hypertension Society (BHS) recommends separate validation of automated devices in special subgroups, e.g. the elderly and pregnant women. The aim of this study was to compare the Finometer (FM) and the earlier validated SpaceLabs 90207 (SL) with standard auscultatory blood pressure measurements in normal, pre-eclamptic and hypertensive pregnancy, following the guidelines of the BHS and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). METHODS: The total study group consisted of 123 pregnant women, of whom were 54 normotensive, 31 pre-eclamptic and 38 hypertensive. Automated readings with the FM and SL were compared with auscultatory blood pressure measurements. Bland-Altman plots, BHS grades, mean pressure differences and 95% limits of agreement were used for analysis. RESULTS: Bland-Altman plots showed a wide scatter of the pressure differences between auscultatory and automated measurements. FM achieved BHS grades C/D, C/B, D/D and D/D in the total, normotensive, pre-eclamptic and hypertensive group, respectively. The AAMI criteria were only met for diastolic blood pressure in the normotensive group. For SL almost identical BHS grades and 95% limits of agreement as compared to our earlier study were found. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of the Finometer are not sufficient for determination of absolute blood pressure levels in individual pregnant women. Our present findings on the SpaceLabs 90207 reconfirm our earlier results.

Semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase in pre-eclampsia: no relation with markers of endothelial cell activation.

BACKGROUND: Semicarbazide sensitive amine-oxidase (SSAO) is an adhesion molecule and thought to play a role in endothelial cell dysfunction (ECD). SSAO has never been associated with markers of ECD. Pre-eclampsia (PE) is, like the early stages of atherosclerosis, characterised by ECD. SSAO could contribute to ECD in PE. METHODS: Plasma samples were obtained in 14 pre-eclamptic patients and 14 matched controls. In these SSAO-activity, von Willebrand factor (vWF) levels and ED1 fibronectin levels were determined. Placental tissue was collected of 12 pre-eclamptic pregnancies, 8 preterm deliveries and 12 term controls. In these samples, SSAO activity was assessed. In a subset of these placentas, immunohistochemical staining was performed for SSAO, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1. RESULTS: Plasma SSAO activity was not significantly different between pre-eclamptic subjects and controls. VWF and ED1 fibronectin were both significantly increased in the pre-eclamptic subjects. There was no correlation between SSAO activity and vWF or ED1 fibronectin levels. Placental SSAO activity was not different between pre-eclamptic pregnancies, preterm deliveries and term controls. There was strong staining of SSAO in vascular smooth muscle cells (VSM) and moderate staining of trophoblast in all three groups. Endothelial cell expression of SSAO was only seen in term controls and the placentas of pre-eclamptic patients. There was no association between the expression of SSAO, ICAM-1 or VCAM-1 in the placentas of pre-eclamptic patients. CONCLUSION: SSAO expression and activity are not related to markers of ECD.