External validation of prognostic models predicting pre-eclampsia: individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. METHODS: IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Validation and development of models using clinical, biochemical and ultrasound markers for predicting pre-eclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk is needed to plan management. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of existing pre-eclampsia prediction models and to develop and validate models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data meta-analysis. We also estimated the prognostic value of individual markers. DESIGN: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of cohort studies. SETTING: Source data from secondary and tertiary care. PREDICTORS: We identified predictors from systematic reviews, and prioritised for importance in an international survey. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Early-onset (delivery at < 34 weeks' gestation), late-onset (delivery at ≥ 34 weeks' gestation) and any-onset pre-eclampsia. ANALYSIS: We externally validated existing prediction models in UK cohorts and reported their performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. We developed and validated 12 new models based on clinical characteristics, clinical characteristics and biochemical markers, and clinical characteristics and ultrasound markers in the first and second trimesters. We summarised the data set-specific performance of each model using a random-effects meta-analysis. Discrimination was considered promising for C-statistics of ≥ 0.7, and calibration was considered good if the slope was near 1 and calibration-in-the-large was near 0. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2 and τ2. A decision curve analysis was undertaken to determine the clinical utility (net benefit) of the models. We reported the unadjusted prognostic value of individual predictors for pre-eclampsia as odds ratios with 95% confidence and prediction intervals. RESULTS: The International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications network comprised 78 studies (3,570,993 singleton pregnancies) identified from systematic reviews of tests to predict pre-eclampsia. Twenty-four of the 131 published prediction models could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Summary C-statistics were between 0.6 and 0.7 for most models, and calibration was generally poor owing to large between-study heterogeneity, suggesting model overfitting. The clinical utility of the models varied between showing net harm to showing minimal or no net benefit. The average discrimination for IPPIC models ranged between 0.68 and 0.83. This was highest for the second-trimester clinical characteristics and biochemical markers model to predict early-onset pre-eclampsia, and lowest for the first-trimester clinical characteristics models to predict any pre-eclampsia. Calibration performance was heterogeneous across studies. Net benefit was observed for International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications first and second-trimester clinical characteristics and clinical characteristics and biochemical markers models predicting any pre-eclampsia, when validated in singleton nulliparous women managed in the UK NHS. History of hypertension, parity, smoking, mode of conception, placental growth factor and uterine artery pulsatility index had the strongest unadjusted associations with pre-eclampsia. LIMITATIONS: Variations in study population characteristics, type of predictors reported, too few events in some validation cohorts and the type of measurements contributed to heterogeneity in performance of the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications models. Some published models were not validated because model predictors were unavailable in the individual participant data. CONCLUSION: For models that could be validated, predictive performance was generally poor across data sets. Although the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications models show good predictive performance on average, and in the singleton nulliparous population, heterogeneity in calibration performance is likely across settings. FUTURE WORK: Recalibration of model parameters within populations may improve calibration performance. Additional strong predictors need to be identified to improve model performance and consistency. Validation, including examination of calibration heterogeneity, is required for the models we could not validate. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015029349. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Pre-eclampsia, a condition in pregnancy that results in raised blood pressure and protein in the urine, is a major cause of complications for the mother and baby. WHAT IS NEEDED?: A way of accurately identifying women at high risk of pre-eclampsia to allow clinicians to start preventative interventions such as administering aspirin or frequently monitoring women during pregnancy. WHERE ARE THE RESEARCH GAPS?: Although over 100 tools (models) have been reported worldwide to predict pre-eclampsia, to date their performance in women managed in the UK NHS is unknown. WHAT DID WE PLAN TO DO?: We planned to comprehensively identify all published models that predict the risk of pre-eclampsia occurring at any time during pregnancy and to assess if this prediction is accurate in the UK population. If the existing models did not perform satisfactorily, we aimed to develop new prediction models. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We formed the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications network, which provided data from a large number of studies (78 studies, 25 countries, 125 researchers, 3,570,993 singleton pregnancies). We were able to assess the performance of 24 out of the 131 models published to predict pre-eclampsia in 11 UK data sets. The models did not accurately predict the risk of pre-eclampsia across all UK data sets, and their performance varied within individual data sets. We developed new prediction models that showed promising performance on average across all data sets, but their ability to correctly identify women who develop pre-eclampsia varied between populations. The models were more clinically useful when used in the care of first-time mothers pregnant with one child, compared to a strategy of treating them all as if they were at high-risk of pre-eclampsia. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Before using the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications models in various populations, they need to be adjusted for characteristics of the particular population and the setting of application.