Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia in low-income and middle-income countries (CRADLE-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality. Evidence regarding interventions in a low-income or middle-income setting is scarce. We aimed to evaluate whether planned delivery between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity without increasing perinatal complications in India and Zambia. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management in women with pre-eclampsia from 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks' gestation. Participants were recruited from nine hospitals and referral facilities in India and Zambia and randomly assigned to planned delivery or expectant management in a 1:1 ratio by a secure web-based randomisation facility hosted by MedSciNet. Randomisation was stratified by centre and minimised by parity, single-fetus pregnancy or multi-fetal pregnancy, and gestational age. The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity with a superiority hypothesis. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of one or more of: stillbirth, neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission of more than 48 h with a non-inferiority hypothesis (margin of 10% difference). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, 10672137. The trial is closed to recruitment and all follow-up has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2019, and March 31, 2022, 565 women were enrolled. 284 women (282 women and 301 babies analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 281 women (280 women and 300 babies analysed) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the primary maternal outcome was not significantly different in the planned delivery group (154 [55%]) compared with the expectant management group (168 [60%]; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·79 to 1·05). The incidence of the primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was non-inferior in the planned delivery group (58 [19%]) compared with the expectant management group (67 [22%]; adjusted risk difference -3·39%, 90% CI -8·67 to 1·90; non-inferiority p<0·0001). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There was a significant reduction in severe maternal hypertension (adjusted RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·99) and stillbirth (0·25, 0·07 to 0·87) associated with planned delivery. There were 12 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 21 in the expectant management group. INTERPRETATION: Clinicians can safely offer planned delivery to women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, in a low-income or middle-income country. Planned delivery reduces stillbirth, with no increase in neonatal unit admissions or neonatal morbidity and reduces the risk of severe maternal hypertension. Planned delivery from 34 weeks' gestation should therefore be considered as an intervention to reduce pre-eclampsia associated mortality and morbidity in these settings. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Indian Department of Biotechnology.

Planned delivery or expectant management in preeclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancy hypertension is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks gestation, it is uncertain whether planned delivery could reduce maternal complications without serious neonatal consequences. In this individual participant data meta-analysis, we aimed to compare planned delivery to expectant management, focusing specifically on women with preeclampsia. DATA SOURCES: We performed an electronic database search using a prespecified search strategy, including trials published between January 1, 2000 and December 18, 2021. We sought individual participant-level data from all eligible trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included women with singleton or multifetal pregnancies with preeclampsia from 34 weeks gestation onward. METHODS: The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality or morbidity. We analyzed all the available data for each prespecified outcome on an intention-to-treat basis. For primary individual patient data analyses, we used a 1-stage fixed effects model. RESULTS: We included 1790 participants from 6 trials in our analysis. Planned delivery from 34 weeks gestation onward significantly reduced the risk of maternal morbidity (2.6% vs 4.4%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.98) compared with expectant management. The primary composite perinatal outcome was increased by planned delivery (20.9% vs 17.1%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.47), driven by short-term neonatal respiratory morbidity. However, infants in the expectant management group were more likely to be born small for gestational age (7.8% vs 10.6%; risk ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99). CONCLUSION: Planned early delivery in women with late preterm preeclampsia provides clear maternal benefits and may reduce the risk of the infant being born small for gestational age, with a possible increase in short-term neonatal respiratory morbidity. The potential benefits and risks of prolonging a pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia should be discussed with women as part of a shared decision-making process.

Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes. DESIGN: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six maternity units in the UK. POPULATION: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6  weeks of gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the Parent Report of Children's Abilities - Revised (PARCA-R) composite score. RESULTS: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 women allocated to planned delivery and 451 women allocated to expectant management. At the 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) allocated to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (SD 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of -2.4 points (95% CI -5.4 to 0.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management was pursued. With the lower than anticipated follow-up rate there was limited power to demonstrate that these scores did not differ, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important.

Planned early delivery for late preterm pre-eclampsia in a low- and middle-income setting: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity globally. Planned delivery between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes but is yet to be evaluated in a low and middle-income setting. Prior to designing a randomised controlled trial to evaluate this in India and Zambia, we carried out a 6-month feasibility study in order to better understand the proposed trial environment and guide development of our intervention. METHODS: We used mixed methods to understand the disease burden and current management of pre-eclampsia at our proposed trial sites and explore the acceptability of the intervention. We undertook a case notes review of women with pre-eclampsia who delivered at the proposed trial sites over a 3-month period, alongside facilitating focus group discussions with women and partners and conducting semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse audit data. A thematic framework analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: Case notes data (n = 326) showed that in our settings, 19.5% (n = 44) of women with pre-eclampsia delivering beyond 34 weeks experienced an adverse outcome. In women delivering between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks, there were similar numbers of antenatal stillbirths [n = 3 (3.3%)] and neonatal deaths [n = 3 (3.4%)]; median infant birthweight was 2.2 kg and 1.9 kg in Zambia and India respectively. Lived experience of women and healthcare providers was an important facilitator to the proposed intervention, highlighting the serious consequences of pre-eclampsia. A preference for spontaneous labour and limited neonatal resources were identified as potential barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a clear need to evaluate the intervention and highlighted several challenges relating to trial context that enabled us to adapt our protocol and design an acceptable intervention. Our study demonstrates the importance of assessing feasibility when developing complex interventions, particularly in a low-resource setting. Additionally, it provides a unique insight into the management of pre-eclampsia at our trial settings and an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs underpinning the acceptability of planned early delivery.

Pre-eclampsia is a complication of pregnancy and is one of the major causes of pregnancy-related death and serious illness for women and babies around the world. Most of these deaths occur in lower income countries in Africa and Asia. Signs of pre-eclampsia include high blood pressure and protein in the urine. It is unpredictable and may affect different organs within the woman, leading to seizures, stroke and even death if not well managed. It can also affect the baby's growth and in severe cases lead to stillbirth. We know that birth of the baby (and placenta) is the only cure for pre-eclampsia. Currently, it is recommended by the World Health Organisation that all women with pre-eclampsia are offered planned early birth once they reach 37 weeks of pregnancy, unless they develop severe complications needing intervention sooner than this. However, research from higher income countries has shown that planned early birth from 34 weeks of pregnancy may reduce serious complications in the woman, without causing harm to the baby. We are designing a clinical trial to find out whether, in women with pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks of pregnancy, it is better to offer planned early birth or to offer close monitoring until either they reach 37 weeks, or a complication develops requiring emergency intervention. Before designing this trial, we carried out a study in order to establish whether the main trial would be possible, and acceptable to the local community, at our potential trial sites in India and Zambia.

The cost effectiveness of vaginal versus abdominal repair of vesicovaginal fistulae.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to assess the comparative provider costs of vaginal and open abdominal repair of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) and to determine the most cost-effective means of managing VVF. METHODS: A prospectively acquired database of all women undergoing VVF repair by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2015 was retrospectively reviewed to determine operating time, perioperative complications, inpatient stay and 30-day readmissions. The success and cost of the VVF repair were identified. Statistical analysis was by unpaired t test, Chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Forty-seven consecutive women of mean age 51 years (range 21-88) undergoing a first attempt at VVF repair at our institution were included; 32(68%) had vaginal repair with Martius fat pad interposition and 15 (32%) had open abdominal repair with omental interposition. There were no perioperative complications or 30-day readmissions in either group. Mean operative time was longer for open abdominal (223.4 min) than vaginal repair (196.9 min). Median inpatient stay was longer for an open abdominal (8 days) than for a vaginal approach (4 days). Successful anatomical closure was achieved in 91% of vaginal and 86% of open abdominal repairs at first attempt, and in 100% after second repair, where required. Mean/median costs for an abdominal repair were significantly higher, at £4,608.69/£4,169.20 than for vaginal repair at £3,381.50/£3,009.24 (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Vesicovaginal fistulae were successfully repaired in 89% of cases at first attempt. The success rate did not differ between approaches. Vaginal repair is significantly more cost-effective than abdominal repair owing to the shorter operative time and length of stay.

Does the Goh classification predict the outcome of vesico-vaginal fistula repair in the developed world?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The Goh Vesico-Vaginal Fistula (VVF) classification has prognostic value in VVF in the developing world (predominantly obstetric), with chances of successful closure decreasing from type 1 to type 4. We evaluated the prognostic value of the Goh classification for VVF of the developed world (predominantly iatrogenic). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 63 consecutive patients with a mean age of 53 years (range 21-88) undergoing VVF repair under a single surgeon between 2006 and 2014. Demographic data, aetiology, operative data and final outcome (anatomical and functional) were recorded. Fistulae were classified according to Goh's system and outcomes correlated with this classification. RESULTS: Successful closure at first repair was achieved in 90 % of type 1, 83 % of type 2, 100 % of type 3 and 100 % of type 4 fistulae. At second repair success was achieved in 100 % of all fistulae, irrespective of type. Continence post-anatomical closure was achieved in 100 % of type 1, 83 % of type 2, 83 % of type 3 and 75 % of type 4 fistulae. Fistula size and patient age were significant determinants of successful outcome. CONCLUSION: Anatomical closure was obtained in 90 % of VVF of the developed world at first attempt, 100 % overall, and was not affected by the Goh classification. Continence post-anatomical closure of VVF was 94 % overall and deteriorated with increasing Goh classification type. The Goh classification has no prognostic value regarding anatomical closure in VVF of the developed world, but may be useful in determining the risk of post-anatomical closure urinary incontinence. Smaller fistula size and younger patient age are significant determinants of success.

Understanding the language barriers to translating informed consent documents for maternal health trials in Zambia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages. DESIGN: We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data. SETTING: The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia. RESULTS: The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Planned Early Delivery or Expectant Management for Late Preterm Pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX).

AIM: There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34+0-36+6 weeks' gestation compared to expectant management from an English National Health Service perspective using participant-level data from the PHOENIX trial. METHODS: Women between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation in 46 maternity units in England and Wales were individually randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Resource use was collected from hospital records between randomisation and primary hospital discharge following birth. Women were followed up at 6 months and 24 months following birth and self-reported resource use for themselves and their infant(s) covering the previous 6 months. Women completed the EQ-5D 5L at randomisation and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months (- £2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 4840 to - 637), with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI - 0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013.

Planned delivery for pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation: the PHOENIX RCT.

BACKGROUND: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia (i.e. at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks' gestation), the optimal delivery time is unclear because limitation of maternal-fetal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of perinatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management, in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. METHODS: We undertook an individually randomised, triple non-masked controlled trial in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, with an embedded health economic evaluation, comparing planned delivery and expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. The co-primary maternal outcome was a maternal morbidity composite or recorded systolic blood pressure of ≥ 160 mmHg (superiority hypothesis). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission (non-inferiority hypothesis). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The primary 2-year infant neurodevelopmental outcome was measured using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. The planned sample size of the trial was 900 women; the trial is now completed. We undertook two linked substudies. RESULTS: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were recruited; 450 women [448 women (two withdrew consent) and 471 infants] were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group [289 (65%) women] than in the expectant management group [338 (75%) women] (adjusted relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.94; p = 0.0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group [196 (42%) infants] than in the expectant management group [159 (34%) infants] (adjusted relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.47; p = 0.0034), but indicators of neonatal morbidity were similar in both groups. At 2-year follow-up, the mean PARCA-R scores were 89.5 points (standard deviation 18.2 points) for the planned delivery group (290 infants) and 91.9 points (standard deviation 18.4 points) for the expectant management group (256 infants), both within the normal developmental range (adjusted mean difference -2.4 points, 95% confidence interval -5.4 to 0.5 points; non-inferiority p = 0.147). Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving (-£2711, 95% confidence interval -£4840 to -£637) compared with expectant management. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. CONCLUSION: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, planned delivery reduces short-term maternal morbidity compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater short-term neonatal morbidity (such as need for respiratory support). At 2-year follow-up, around 60% of parents reported follow-up scores. Average infant development was within the normal range for both groups; the small between-group mean difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important. Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving to the health service. These findings should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision-making on timing of delivery. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the trial include the challenges of finding a perinatal outcome that adequately represented the potential risks of both groups and a maternal outcome that reflects the multiorgan manifestations of pre-eclampsia. The incidences of maternal and perinatal primary outcomes were higher than anticipated on the basis of previous studies, but this did not limit interpretation of the analysis. The trial was limited by a higher loss to follow-up rate than expected, meaning that the extent and direction of bias in outcomes (between responders and non-responders) is uncertain. A longer follow-up period (e.g. up to 5 years) would have enabled us to provide further evidence on long-term infant outcomes, but this runs the risk of greater attrition and increased expense. FUTURE WORK: We identified a number of further questions that could be prioritised through a formal scoping process, including uncertainties around disease-modifying interventions, prognostic factors, longer-term follow-up, the perspectives of women and their families, meta-analysis with other studies, effect of a similar intervention in other health-care settings, and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other related policies around neonatal unit admission in late preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered as ISRCTN01879376. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Planned early delivery versus expectant management to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes in pre-eclampsia in a low- and middle-income setting: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (CRADLE-4 Trial).

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication characterised by high blood pressure and multi-organ dysfunction in the mother. It is a leading contributor to maternal and perinatal mortality, with 99% of these deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Whilst clear guidelines exist for management of early-onset (< 34 weeks) and term (≥ 37 weeks) disease, the optimal timing of delivery in pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks is less clear. In a high-income setting, delivery may improve maternal outcomes without detriment to the baby, but this intervention is yet to be evaluated in LMIC. METHODS: The CRADLE-4 Trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial comparing planned early delivery (initiation of delivery within 48 h of randomisation) with routine care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation in India and Zambia. The primary objective is to establish whether a policy of planned early delivery can reduce adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing severe neonatal morbidity. DISCUSSION: The World Health Organization recommends delivery for all women with pre-eclampsia from 37 weeks onwards, based on evidence showing clear maternal benefit without increased neonatal risk. Before 34 weeks, watchful waiting is preferred, with delivery recommended only when there is severe maternal or fetal compromise, due to the neonatal risks associated with early preterm delivery. Currently, there is a lack of guidance for clinicians managing women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks. Early delivery benefits the mother but may increase the need for neonatal unit admission in the infant (albeit without serious morbidity at this gestation). On the other hand, waiting to deliver may increase the risk of stillbirth, fetal growth restriction and hypoxic brain injury in the neonate as a result of severe maternal complications. This is especially true for LMIC where there is a higher prevalence of adverse events. The balance of risks and benefits therefore needs to be carefully assessed before making firm recommendations. This is the first trial evaluating the optimal timing of delivery in pre-eclampsia in LMIC, where resources and disease burden are considerably different. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 10672137 . Registered on 28 November 2019.