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.

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.

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl.

Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. Both mechanical (eg, Foley catheters) and pharmacological methods (eg, prostaglandins) are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of induction of labour with a Foley catheter with induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands between Feb 10, 2009, and May 17, 2010. We enrolled women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix, an indication for induction of labour, and no prior caesarean section. Participants were randomly allocated by an online randomisation system to induction of labour with a 30 mL Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (1:1 ratio). Because of the nature of the intervention this study was not blinded. The primary outcome was caesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time from intervention to birth. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. We also did a meta-analysis that included our trial. The trial was registered with the Dutch trial registry, number NTR 1646. FINDINGS: 824 women were allocated to induction of labour with a Foley catheter (n=412) or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (n=412). Caesarean section rates were much the same between the two groups (23%vs 20%, risk ratio [RR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·87-1·47). A meta-analysis including our trial data confirmed that a Foley catheter did not reduce caesarean section rates. We recorded two serious maternal adverse events, both in the prostaglandin group: one uterine perforation and one uterine rupture. INTERPRETATION: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with a Foley catheter is similar to induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 gel, with fewer maternal and neonatal side-effects. FUNDING: None.

Health-related quality of life after induction of labor versus expectant monitoring in gestational hypertension or preeclampsia at term.

OBJECTIVE: Gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE) are major contributors to maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. In GH or PE, labor may be either induced or monitored expectantly. We studied maternal health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) after induction of labor versus expectant monitoring in GH or PE at term. We performed the HR-QoL study alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing induction of labor to expectant monitoring in women with GH or PE after 36 weeks. METHODS: We used written questionnaires, covering background characteristics, condition-specific issues, and validated measures: the Short-Form (SF-36), European Quality of Life (EuroQoL 6D3L), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Symptom Checklist (SCL-90). Measurements were at the following time points: baseline, 6 weeks postpartum, and 6 months postpartum. A multivariate mixed model with repeated measures was defined to assess the effect of the treatments on the physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: We analyzed the data of 491 randomized and 220 nonrandomized women. We did not find treatment effect on long-term HR-QoL (PCS: p = 0.09; MCS: p = 0.82). The PCS improved over time (p < 0.001) and was better in nonrandomized patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Despite a clinical benefit of induction of labor, long-term HR-QoL is equal after the induction of labor and expectant management in women with GH or PE beyond 36 weeks of gestation.

Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT-II): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gestational hypertension (GH) and pre-eclampsia (PE) can result in severe complications such as eclampsia, placental abruption, syndrome of Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes and Low Platelets (HELLP) and ultimately even neonatal or maternal death. We recently showed that in women with GH or mild PE at term induction of labour reduces both high risk situations for mothers as well as the caesarean section rate. In view of this knowledge, one can raise the question whether women with severe hypertension, pre-eclampsia or deterioration chronic hypertension between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation should be delivered or monitored expectantly. Induction of labour might prevent maternal complications. However, induction of labour in late pre-term pregnancy might increase neonatal morbidity and mortality compared with delivery at term. METHODS/DESIGN: Pregnant women with severe gestational hypertension, mild pre-eclampsia or deteriorating chronic hypertension at a gestational age between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks will be asked to participate in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Women will be randomised to either induction of labour or expectant monitoring. In the expectant monitoring arm, women will be induced only when the maternal or fetal condition detoriates or at 37+0 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure is a composite endpoint of maternal mortality, severe maternal complications (eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, pulmonary oedema and thromboembolic disease) and progression to severe pre-eclampsia. Secondary outcomes measures are respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), neonatal morbidity and mortality, caesarean section and vaginal instrumental delivery rates, maternal quality of life and costs. Analysis will be intention to treat. The power calculation is based on an expectant reduction of the maternal composite endpoint from 5% to 1% for an expected increase in neonatal RDS from 1% at 37 weeks to 10% at 34 weeks. This implies that 680 women have to be randomised. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide insight as to whether in women with hypertensive disorders late pre-term, induction of labour is an effective treatment to prevent severe maternal complications without compromising the neonatal morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1792 CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl.