Dataset Information

The potential value of activin B and fibronectin for the triage of pregnancies of unknown location and prediction of first trimester viability

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Aim

We have assessed the potential predictive ability of the biomarkers activin B and fibronectin (FN1) alone and when added to established markers for triaging patients as being at low or high risk of ectopic pregnancy (EP). We also assessed their use as predictors of viability at 12 weeks gestation.

Methods

Exploratory secondary analysis of a prospective study including all women classified as a pregnancy of known location (PUL) based on transvaginal ultrasonography between January and December 2007 at the early pregnancy unit of St Georges’ Hospital (London). We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the diagnostic potential of the biomarkers to triage PUL at high risk of complications (EP or persistent PUL), and standard binary logistic regression to predict first trimester viability at 12 weeks.

Results

For discriminating high‐risk (n = 16) from low‐risk PUL (n = 93), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.60–0.85) for activin B and 0.55 (0.41–0.68) for FN1. Adding activin B to a multinomial logistic regression model incorporating β‐hCG ratio and initial progesterone yielded odds ratios of 0.16 (0.05–0.55) for failing vs high‐risk PUL and 0.29 (0.07–1.19) for intrauterine vs high‐risk PUL and increased the model's AUC from 0.84 to 0.89. At a risk threshold of 5% for high‐risk PUL, sensitivity increased from 84% to 87% and specificity from 48% to 64%. For discriminating viable (n = 28) from non‐viable (n = 81) pregnancies at 12 weeks, both markers had an AUC of 0.54.

Conclusions

Our results suggested that activin B may be a promising marker to improve PUL triage in addition to established markers.

SUBMITTER: Al‐Memar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8409880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the relationship between first-trimester vaginal bleeding and fetal growth patterns. METHODS:We conducted a secondary analysis of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies-Singletons, a prospective cohort study of low-risk, nonobese women with healthy lifestyles. Duration of bleeding was self-reported at enrollment (10 0/7 to 13 6/7 weeks of gestation) and categorized as 0, 1, or more than 1 day. Longitudinal measures of fetal biometrics were obtained in up to six study visits, and estimated fetal weight was computed. Growth trajectories were created for biometrics and estimated fetal weight. When global tests among groups was significant (P<.05), week-specific global and pairwise differences were tested. Birth weight and risk of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate were secondary outcomes. All analyses were adjusted for maternal age, weight, height, parity, and racial-ethnic group and neonatal sex in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS:In 2,307 eligible women, 410 (17.8%) reported first-trimester bleeding, of whom 176 bled for 1 day and 234 bled for more than 1 day. Women with more than 1 day of bleeding demonstrated decreased fetal abdominal circumference from 34 to 39 weeks of gestation compared with women without bleeding. For women with more than 1 day of bleeding, compared with women without bleeding, estimated fetal weight was 68-107 g smaller from 35 to 39 weeks of gestation. Mean birth weight at term was 88 g smaller, confirming differences in calculated fetal weight, and SGA neonates were delivered to 148 (8.5%), 9 (5.7%), and 33 (15.7%) women in the no bleeding, 1 day, and more than 1 day of bleeding groups, respectively. CONCLUSION:More than 1 day of first-trimester vaginal bleeding was associated with smaller estimated fetal weight late in pregnancy driven by smaller abdominal circumference. The magnitude of decrease in birth weight was small, albeit comparable with observed decreases associated with maternal smoking. It remains unknown whether early pregnancy bleeding is associated with short-term or long-term morbidity and whether additional intervention would be of benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00912132.

Project description:BackgroundArtemisinins, the most effective antimalarials available, are not recommended for falciparum malaria during the first trimester of pregnancy because of safety concerns. Therefore, quinine is used despite its poor effectiveness. Assessing artemisinin safety requires weighing the risks of malaria and its treatment. We aimed to assess the effect of first-trimester malaria and artemisinin treatment on miscarriage and major congenital malformations.MethodsIn this observational study, we assessed data from antenatal clinics on the Thai-Myanmar border between Jan 1, 1994, and Dec 31, 2013. We included women who presented to antenatal clinics during their first trimester with a viable fetus. Women were screened for malaria, and data on malaria, antimalarial treatment, and birth outcomes were collected. The relationship between artemisinin treatments (artesunate, dihydroartemisinin, or artemether) and miscarriage or malformation was assessed using Cox regression with left-truncation and time-varying exposures.FindingsOf 55 636 pregnancies registered between 1994 and 2013, 25 485 pregnancies were analysed for first-trimester malaria and miscarriage, in which 2558 (10%) had first-trimester malaria. The hazard of miscarriage increased 1·61-fold after an initial first-trimester falciparum episode (95% CI 1·32-1·97; p<0·0001), 3·24-fold following falciparum recurrence (2·24-4·68; p<0·0001), and 2·44-fold (1·01-5·88; p=0·0473) following recurrent symptomatic vivax malaria. No difference was noted in miscarriage in first-line falciparum treatments with artemisinin (n=183) versus quinine (n=842; HR 0·78 [95% CI 0·45-1·34]; p=0·3645) or in risk of major congenital malformations (two [2%] of 109 [95% CI 0·22-6·47] versus eight (1%) of 641 [0·54-2·44], respectively).InterpretationFirst-trimester falciparum and vivax malaria both increase the risk of miscarriage. We noted no evidence of an increased risk of miscarriage or of major congenital malformations associated with first-line treatment with an artemisinin derivative compared with quinine. In view of the low efficacy of quinine and wide availability of highly effective artemisinin-based combination therapies, it is time to reconsider first-trimester antimalarial treatment recommendations.FundingThe Wellcome Trust and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:Study questionDoes IVF independently increase the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and is this increase in risk modified by maternal body mass index?Summary answerIVF appears to be an independent risk factor for GDM and elevated blood glucose levels in overweight women (BMI > 25 kg/m2).What is known alreadyIVF has been associated with increased risk of GDM, but most previous studies did not adequately assess confounding or effect modification by other risk factors.Study design, size, durationCross-sectional study using data from 1089 women with singleton pregnancies who participated in a Singaporean birth cohort study (GUSTO) and received a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 26-28 weeks gestation.Participants/materials, setting, methodsA total of 1089 women (n = 1013 conceived spontaneously, n = 76 conceived through IVF) with singleton pregnancies received a 75 g OGTT at 26-28 weeks gestation. Fasting and 2 h postprandial blood glucose levels were assayed. World Health Organization criteria (1999) standard criteria were used to classify GDM: ≥7.0 mmol/L for fasting and/or ≥7.8 mmol/L for 2-h postprandial plasma glucose levels, which was the clinical guideline in use during the study.Main results and the role of chanceIVF pregnancies had nearly double the odds of GDM (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.03-3.26) and elevated fasting (mean difference = 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI: 0.00-0.24) and OGTT 2-h blood glucose levels (mean difference = 0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI: 0.27-1.01), after adjusting for commonly recognized risk factors for GDM. After stratification by first-trimester BMI, these increased risks of GDM (OR = 3.54, 95% CI: 1.44-8.72) and elevated fasting (mean difference = 0.39 mmol/L, 95% CI: 0.13-0.65) and 2-h blood (mean difference = 1.24 mmol/L, 95% CI: 0.56-1.91) glucose levels were significant only in the IVF group who is also overweight or obese (BMI > 25 kg/m2).Limitations reasons for cautionOne limitation of our study is the absence of a 1 h post-OGTT plasma glucose sample, as we were using the 1999 WHO diagnostic criteria (the clinical guideline in Singapore) at the time of our study, instead of the revised 2013 WHO diagnostic criteria. Our cohort may not be representative of the general Singapore obstetric population, although participants were recruited from the two largest maternity hospitals in the country and include both private and subsidized patients.Wider implications of the findingsIVF appears to be an independent risk factor for GDM and elevated blood glucose levels in overweight women. Our findings reinforce the need to advise overweight or obese women contemplating IVF to lose weight before the procedure to reduce their risk of GDM and hyperglycemia-related adverse outcomes arising therefrom. In settings where universal GDM screening is not routine, overweight or obese women who conceive by IVF should be screened.Study funding/competing interest(s)This research was supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation under its Translational and Clinical Research (TCR) Flagship Program and administered by the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council (NMRC), Singapore (NMRC/TCR/004-NUS/2008; NMRC/TCR/012-NUHS/2014). Additional funding was provided by the Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). K.M.G. and Y.S.C. have received lecture fees from Nestle Nutrition Institute and Danone, respectively. K.M.G., Y.S.C. and S.Y.C. are part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec and Danone. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The other authors have nothing to disclose.Trial registration numberN/A.