Rule-in and rule-out of pre-eclampsia using DELFIA Xpress PlGF 1-2-3 and sFlt-1: PlGF ratio.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore and validate thresholds for Placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble fms-like tyrosine-kinase 1 (s-Flt-1) (as s-Flt-1: PlGF ratio), to rule-in and rule-out disease in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, using DELFIA® Xpress PlGF1-2-3 and sFlt-1 assays. STUDY DESIGN: 369 samples from women with suspected or confirmed pre-eclampsia were analysed from a prospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum PlGF and sFlt-1: PlGF were quantified using DELFIA® Xpress PlGF1-2-3 and DELFIA® Xpress sFlt-1 tests. Performances were evaluated at established and exploratory thresholds. Low PlGF concentration and sFlt-1: PlGF AUROC were compared. RESULTS: PlGF 1-2-3 concentration thresholds were confirmed to have high performance for rule-in (<50 pg/ml) and rule-out (≥150 pg/ml) pre-eclampsia within seven days (20-33+6 Weeks <50 pg/ml: Negative predictive value (NPV) 90.7% (95% CI 83.9, 95.3); ≥150 pg/ml: NPV 94.8% (95% CI 88.4, 98.3)) and 28 days (20-33+6 Weeks <50 pg/ml: Negative predictive value (NPV) 83.9% (95% CI 76.0, 90.0); ≥150 pg/ml: NPV 92.8% (95% CI 85.7, 97.0)). Optimal sFlt-1: PlGF thresholds for rule-in were ≥ 70 before 34 weeks and ≥ 90 after 34 weeks, and <50 to rule-out pre-eclampsia. Low PlGF alone had comparable performance to sFlt-1: PlGF, but test performance for both was reduced in women with Kidney Disease. CONCLUSIONS: DELFIA® Xpress PlGF1-2-3 and sFlt-1 assays for pre-eclampsia rule-in and rule-out have comparable performance to other established assays, and could be an alternative for clinical use. Performance was not enhanced by use of sFlt-1: PlGF ratio, suggesting that PlGF alone could provide a cheaper alternative to dual biomarker testing.

The assessment of blood pressure in pregnant women: pitfalls and novel approaches.

Accurate assessment of blood pressure is fundamental to the provision of safe obstetrical care. It is simple, cost effective, and life-saving. Treatments for preeclampsia, including antihypertensive drugs, magnesium sulfate, and delivery, are available in many settings. However, the instigation of appropriate treatment relies on prompt and accurate recognition of hypertension. There are a number of different techniques for blood pressure assessment, including the auscultatory method, automated oscillometric devices, home blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory monitoring, and invasive monitoring. The auscultatory method with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the use of Korotkoff sounds was previously recommended as the gold standard technique. Mercury sphygmomanometers have been withdrawn owing to safety concerns and replaced with aneroid devices, but these are particularly prone to calibration errors and regular calibration is imperative to ensure accuracy. Automated oscillometric devices are straightforward to use, but the physiological changes in healthy pregnancy and pathologic changes in preeclampsia may affect the accuracy of a device and monitors must be validated. Validation protocols classify pregnant women as a "special population," and protocols must include 15 women in each category of normotensive pregnancy, hypertensive pregnancy, and preeclampsia. In addition to a scarcity of devices validated for pregnancy and preeclampsia, other pitfalls that cause inaccuracy include the lack of training and poor technique. Blood pressure assessment can be affected by maternal position, inappropriate cuff size, conversation, caffeine, smoking, and irregular heart rate. For home blood pressure monitoring, appropriate instruction should be given on how to use the device. The classification of hypertension and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has recently been revised. These are classified as preeclampsia, transient gestational hypertension, gestational hypertension, white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension, chronic hypertension, and chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia. Blood pressure varies across gestation and by ethnicity, but gestation-specific thresholds have not been adopted. Hypertension is defined as a sustained systolic blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg or a sustained diastolic blood pressure of ≥90 mm Hg. In some guidelines, the threshold of diagnosis depends on the setting in which blood pressure measurement is taken, with a threshold of 140/90 mm Hg in a healthcare setting, 135/85 mm Hg at home, or a 24-hour average blood pressure on ambulatory monitoring of >126/76 mm Hg. Some differences exist among organizations with respect to the criteria for the diagnosis of preeclampsia and the correct threshold for intervention and target blood pressure once treatment has been instigated. Home blood pressure monitoring is currently a focus for research. Novel technologies, including early warning devices (such as the CRADLE Vital Signs Alert device) and telemedicine, may provide strategies that prompt earlier recognition of abnormal blood pressure and therefore improve management. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on methods to assess blood pressure in pregnancy and appropriate technique to optimize accuracy. The importance of accurate blood pressure assessment is emphasized with a discussion of preeclampsia prediction and treatment of severe hypertension. Classification of hypertensive disorders and thresholds for treatment will be discussed, including novel developments in the field.

A Multicenter Cohort Study of Histologic Findings and Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Disease in Women Who Have Been Pregnant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: For many women pregnancy is the first contact with health services, thus providing an opportunity to identify renal disease. This study compares causes and long-term renal outcomes of biopsy-proven renal disease identified during pregnancy or within 1 year postpartum, with nonpregnant women. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Native renal biopsies (1997-2012), in women of childbearing age (16 to <50 years), from 21 hospitals were studied. The pregnancy-related diagnosis group included those women with abnormal urinalysis/raised creatinine identified during pregnancy or within 1 year postpartum. Pregnancy-related and control biopsies were matched for age and ethnicity (black versus nonblack). RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three pregnancy-related biopsies (19 antenatal, 154 postpregnancy) were identified and matched with 1000 controls. FSGS was more common in pregnancy-related biopsies (32.4%) than controls (9.7%) (P<0.001) but there were no differences in Columbia classification. Women with a pregnancy-related diagnosis were younger (32.1 versus 34.2 years; P=0.004) and more likely to be black (26.0% versus 13.3%; P<0.001) than controls, although there were no differences in ethnicities in women with FSGS. The pregnancy-related group (excluding antenatal biopsies) was more likely to have a decline in Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR in the follow-up period than the control group (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.71; P=0.04), and this decline appeared to be more rapid (-1.33 versus -0.56 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year, respectively; P=0.045). However, there were no differences between groups in those who required RRT or who died. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy is an opportunity to detect kidney disease. FSGS is more common in women who have been pregnant than in controls, and disease identified in pregnancy or within 1 year postpartum is more likely to show a subsequent decline in renal function. Further work is required to determine whether pregnancy initiates, exacerbates, or reveals renal disease.