Comparison of two "a priori" risk assessment algorithms for preeclampsia in Italy: a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the algorithms proposed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation in 2012 and BCNatal in 2013 in an Italian population. METHODS: A multicentric prospective study was carried out which included pregnancies at 11-13 weeks' gestation from Jan 2014 through May 2017. Two previously published algorithms were used for the calculation of the "a priori" risk of preeclampsia (based on risk factors from medical history) in each individual. RESULTS: In a study population of 11,632 cases, 67 (0.6%) developed early preeclampsia and 211 (1.8%) developed late preeclampsia. The detection rates (95% CI) for early and late preeclampsia were 58.2% (45.5-70.2) vs. 41.8% (29.6-54.5) (p value < 0.05) and 44.1% (37.3-51.1) vs. 38% (31.3-44.8) (p value < 0.05) for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively (at a 10% false positive rate). The associated risk was 1:226 and 1:198 (p value ns) for early PE, and 1:17 and 1:24 (p value ns) for late PE for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Fetal Medicine Foundation screening for preeclampsia at 11-13 weeks' gestation scored the highest detection rate for both early and late PE. At a fixed 10% false positive rate, the estimated "a priori" risks of both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the BCNatal algorithms in an Italian population were quite similar, and both were reliable and consistent.

Norethindrone acetate or dienogest for the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis: a before and after study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients satisfied with their treatment before and after a systematic change from norethindrone acetate to dienogest as the first-line progestin for symptomatic endometriosis. DESIGN: Before and after study. SETTING: Academic department. PATIENT(S): The last 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom norethindrone acetate was used, and the first 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom dienogest was used. INTERVENTION(S): Norethindrone acetate at the oral dose of 2.5 mg once a day until June 6, 2013, then dienogest at the oral dose of 2 mg once a day thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Degree of satisfaction with treatment after 6 months of progestin therapy and assessment of any variations in pain symptoms, psychological status, sexual function, or health-related quality of life associated with the introduction of dienogest. RESULT(S): The proportion of satisfied plus very satisfied women after 6 months of treatment was 71% in the "before" period (norethindrone acetate) and 72% in the "after" period (dienogest). The implementation of dienogest was not associated with statistically significant ameliorations in overall pain relief, psychological status, sexual functioning, or health-related quality of life. Treatment was well tolerated by 58% of norethindrone acetate users compared with 80% of dienogest users. After dienogest implementation, the absolute risk reduction in the occurrence of any side effect was 13.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.8%-28.6%). CONCLUSION(S): Considering the large difference in the cost of the two drugs, dienogest should be suggested selectively in women who do not tolerate norethindrone acetate.